All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear authors, we would congratulate to you on the acceptance of your research work. It is recommended to consider thorough proofreading with your final copy.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Although the Academic Editor is happy to accept your article as being scientifically sound, a final check of the manuscript shows that it would benefit from further English editing. Therefore, please identify necessary edits and address these while in proof stage. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you may approach your own choice of editing service provider. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Computer Science Section Editor covering this Section #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
I think the author has carefully revised the paper based on the reviewer's comments. The overall paper's idea is good and contributes to the body of knowledge, the logical structure is reasonable, which conforms to the good requirements of academic paper writing. Therefore, I recommend acceptance of this paper.
The work has been improved
The comments are addressed and have been improved
Up to the mark
No comments
Dear authors, please address the comments of reviewers carefully. In addition, the authors may consider the following points,
1. Elaborate on the contribution of your work.
2. Proofread your manuscript carefully.
3. Consider the latest and related references.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
no comment
no comment
no comment
1、 The English language should be improved to ensure that an international audience can clearly understand your text. Some examples where the language could be improved include lines 101, 132-133 – the current phrasing makes comprehension difficult.
2、 Your introduction needs more detail. I suggest that you improve the description at lines 35- 36 to provide more justification for your study. Mission planning problem is usually a kind of complex combinatorial optimization problem. It is difficult to describe these problems as VRP problems.
3、 Is the heterogeneous mission planning studied in this paper aimed at a single UAV? How to embody multiple UAVs, as the author wrote in the title? If it is only for a single UAV, I think it is no different from the traditional VRP Problem.
4、 How does the algorithm represent the process of the UAV returning to the base for charging and then continuing the subsequent tasks? This is not well reflected in the masking strategy designed by the author.
5、 I think the author has provided a good heterogeneous mission scenario and an effective reinforcement learning algorithm to solve this problem, but the author should make a more detailed design and improvement in the number of UAVs involved and how to reflect the charging strategy of UAVs returning to the base.
The article "Heterogeneous mission planning of UAVs with attention-based deep reinforcement learning" is contributing to the body of knowledge, the idea is clear. However, there is less literature review, needs to add more literature. Needs proper proofreading as there are grammatical mistakes.
The experimental designs are up to the mark
Proper literature should be studied and comparison should be carried out. As discussed earlier, the literature support is less in this research work.
The overall paper's idea is good and contributes to the body of knowledge, however, more literature should be added, and the result and findings should be supported by the literature. Review and proofread the paper thoroughly before final submission.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.