Distributed Model Predictive Consensus Control of Unmanned Surface Vehicles with Post-Verification

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please read the attachment. Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper starts off with a good introduction to the related literature review, then goes into details of the proposed approach, which need significant improvements in terms of presentation, sufficient description of details, analysis, and comparison.

 

 

1. The introduction should end with a brief overview of the proposed approach and how it differs from the studied literature in general technical terms. It should flow from a general description to more specific choices of methods/techniques. The current description is insufficient, lacks the big picture, and doesn’t flow well.
2. The authors should clearly describe the practical advantages of the proposed approach with example applications where it can be used
3. There should be a list of technical contributions of the paper and an analysis towards the end of the paper of whether the contributions were achieved. The novelty of the proposed control model should be highlighted.
4. Regarding the simulations, no sufficient details about the environment, the scenarios, or the evaluation metrics were provided. A representative figure for the setup would be helpful and a summary of the tested scenario (probably in a table) will give a better overview of the scope.
5. Which platform can be used for testing? What communication technology will be adopted? What are the limitations of the current work? 
6. The results are not explained nor analyzed. The authors only show the plots with a brief description without analyzing the performance. They only mention that the USVs converge.
7. There is no comparison against any state-of-the-art solutions
8. Description of implementation steps is not clear, for example, step 1. The approach should be explained in concise technical language, together with the mathematical formulations. 
9. The paper has grammatical and spelling mistakes, some sentences are incomplete and hence not clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract is still poorly written and doesn't give a concise summary of the paper. The language must be revised.

Towards the end of the introduction, the added details (in response to point 1) are insufficient and unclear. 

The added contributions are not stated properly. Many details are missing. 

Point 2 in the comments was not answered. 

Supporting details in the results section are better than before, yet there is room for improvement (in terms of description and analysis)

The manuscript still needs revision to correct sentence structure, spelling, and grammatical mistakes.  

I have annotated the abstract and the last part of the introduction for further improvement. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx