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.
The paper was well improved and can be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Yilun Shang, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
No further comments.
N/A
No further comments
No further comments
The paper must be improved. My decision is Major Revisions.
Thank you for the answers. However, I still find that the novelty is not clear, and the paper has many spelling and grammatical errors.
I believe the authors rushed to submit the second version. The figures are not readable, and the cited papers are mostly from 2009. Please cite and address the latest research in the field.
For Figure 1, replace it with a picture of the UUV and place the reference frames on top of it. Figures 2 and 3 are also unclear. In fact, please check all the figures for clarity.
No experimental setup
The proposed idea shows the effectiveness of the proposed method compared to Kalman Filter, but the figures are not clear and it is not explained well in the text.
-
I consider the research is well-defined. The article is an original one and aligns well with the journal's aims and scope.
The authors should mention and justify the novelty of the methodology proposed.
I strongly suggest comparing the results with State Observers or a Kalman Filter as a reference.
The paper must be improve according to all observations introduced by reviewers.
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
The article focuses on self-learning control of an Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV) to navigate and address the problem of under-actuation. Here are my comments to strengthen the article:
1. The contribution section of the article is unclear. The authors should reword this section to clearly define the novelty of their work.
2. Since you mention robust control in the presence of disturbances, please cite relevant articles in the introduction and discuss the current research in this area.
3. There are several types of UUVs. Which model type have you chosen for your paper? Include a picture or sketch of your model to clarify and justify your mathematical model.
4. Why is rotation about the x-axis not considered in the mathematical model?
5. Include a section explaining control and stability concerning the UUV.Show the overall control architecture in the form of a figure.
6. In the simulation, plot the disturbance graph as well to make it easier to read and compare the results.
7. It is good that the proposed method is working. However, I strongly suggest comparing the results with State Observers or a Kalman Filter as a reference, as Kalman filters are commonly used in experiments.
There are no experimental results
See my comments
The paper needs major improvement. Also, check the grammatical mistakes.
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.