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,
Please read carefully at the reviewers' comments and make the revisions accordingly, if there is any.
Thank you for your contribution,
Best regards.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jyotismita Chaki, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Some English sentences in certain areas can be polished.
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
no comment
Based on the reviewers' comments, the manuscript could be considered for publication after a revision to address the comments of R3
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
I commend the authors for their extensive data set, compiled over many years of detailed fieldwork. In addition, the manuscript is clearly written in professional, unambiguous language.
1. According to convention, the first level headings "Conclusions" and "Acknowledgements" should be "Conclusion" and "Acknowledgement".
2. The checkmark in Table 2 is not in the center of the grid.
3. The characters in Figure 1 may be slightly larger.
no comment
no comment
no comment
The paper is generally clear, and the use of professional terminology is appropriate, with a logical structure. However, some sections are verbose and repetitive, such as parts of the introduction, which could be more concise.The paper mentions the construction and use of the Event_DVS_space7 dataset but does not provide detailed instructions on how to access this data. It is recommended to include a method for accessing the dataset in the appendix to facilitate replication by other researchers.
The research is innovative in applying event cameras to space object detection, aligning well with the journal's scope. The proposed ACMNet network effectively addresses the problem of detecting space objects under backlight and dim conditions, filling a gap in existing knowledge. The methodology is described in detail, but some steps could be more explicit.
The paper demonstrates the effectiveness of ACMNet in specific conditions but lacks a thorough discussion of its impact and novelty. It is suggested to include more discussion on potential impacts and possible improvements in other application scenarios to provide a comprehensive evaluation of its innovativeness. The results section clearly demonstrates the advantages of ACMNet. However, the statistical analysis of experimental results could be more detailed.The conclusions summarize the main findings and relate closely to the research question. They are clear and supported by the results, but it is suggested to discuss the limitations of the study and future research directions in the conclusion to provide a more comprehensive perspective.
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.