Proof of Concept of the Use of the Parametric Effect in Two Media with Application to Underwater Acoustic Communications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study begins with a systematic presentation of the theoretical framework that serves as the foundation for the so-called parametric nonlinear effect. In relation to this behavior, it is described analytically how to solve the problem in two cases. The paper is well written and well organized. The references are up-to-date. The paper in question needs revision before it can be considered for publication in the electronics journal. Some things to think about are the following:

• The introduction should be extended to clearly explain the problem’s background. In addition, the contribution of the paper should be clearly stated.
• All the symbols mentioned throughout the paper should be defined.
• For better organization, I believe it is preferable to include subtitles for the answer to the problem in the two situations described.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper provides a systematic exposition of the theoretical framework on which the basis of the parametric nonlinear effect. This paper is well-written and organized. Comments to the authors:

1) How the shock distance is calculated and explain its importance in this work.

2) Provide suitable references for equations 1 and 2.

3) How the E(t) is calculated in this paper.

4) Explain how the attenuation in air impact on the results.

5) CPFSK modulation details are not clear.

6) Results section needs a detailed explanation.

Needs a minor review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents study of use of the parametric effect in two media with application to underwater acoustic communications.  Below I attached some questions, editorial mistakes etc., to which the Authors should to assume an attitude:

1. In some places in the paper there are Spanish words eg. line 107,111.

2. The state-of-the-art of presented studies should be more deeply analyzed.

3. Please, provide the novelty of the paper e.g maybe as bullet points in the introduction section.

4. The cited papers should be more analyzed in the introduction section.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript demonstrates the parametric effect as proof of concept from a digital modulation for underwater acoustic communications. The manuscript is well structured, the study is good, and the topic is interesting, however, some shortcomings should be addressed before publication.

1-      In line 74, the authors must define the v and c₀

2-      In Figure 3, the language used to define the figure is not English!!

3-      The authors must check carefully to have no other language than English in their manuscript.

4-      Authors must explain CPFSK modulation, and giving abbreviations in the manuscript without defining the reference words is not acceptable.

5-      In section 6.1.: There is only one carrier that will be modulated (frequency modulation), is it correct? or there are two carriers with different frequencies?

6-      In digital modulation format the modulated signal (e.g., FSK) will be shown contiguously since it is a contentious modulated signal. Therefore, showing modulated signals for bit 1 and bit 0 in two different graphs (and both from 0 to 1 ms) is not correct! since bits zero and one come after each other, and there is one carrier to be modulated. Why do the authors separate them and show them from 0 to 1ms (for both m0 and 1 bit), Fig 13 & Fig 14?

7-      I recommend the authors rephrase some parts of the manuscript to sound more professional.

8-      Which correlation methods did the authors use? Pearson correlation or Kendall rank correlation or Spearman correlation or…? And why did the authors choose that method?

Overall, the quality of the English language is good. However, minor editing of the English language is required. ( In the manuscript some words are not in English that should be changed) .

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all the comments.

 Minor editing of English language required

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors satisfactorily addressed all questions and comments. The paper can be accepted for publication.

The quality of the English language is good.