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.
All comments have been met by the author. I am happy with their comments and modifications.
Major revision. The paper has contributed toward the research idea.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# 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 #]
The English of the paper is better, and the charts basically meet the requirements.
This paper studies the problem of slow target detection, which has good significance.
The method proposed in this paper is novel ， but the advantages of this method are not described clearly. There is a lack of in-depth theoretical and experimental research and verification, and lack of comparison with other methods.
The problems studied in this paper have good practical significance. However, the method studied in this paper lacks in-depth theoretical and experimental verification, and the comparison between the proposed method and other methods is also insufficient.The suggestions are as follows::
1. The whole theoretical process of the research method is given.
2. In this paper, the target velocity range of the proposed method should be given, and explicit simulation and practical verification examples should be given.
3. In this paper, the relationship between detection method and target SINR should be given.
1- The purpose of the paper is ambiguous and not clear relative to the mentioned
references and previously published work :-
- Reference no. 6
- "Detection improvement of off-pin targets in FMCW radars", October 2019IOP
Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering 610:012048, DOI:
10.1088/1757-899X/610/1/012048. Not included in the references.
2- For the proposed filter:
- The reason of choosing its coefficients and order is not clear, and needs more proof.
- The reason for putting it before the first FFT or the second FFT needs explanation.
- References [7] and [8] are not found in the paper body.
1- Research questions are not well defined.
2- Results of Fig (10) is the same as that proposed in [6] . No extra enhancement.
3- According to Fig (10), the mentioned enhancement in Fig. (11) has no meaning.
4- Hardware design and implementation was not described and its results are not sufficient.
1- No novality was found in this article.
2- Results in conclusion need to be verified.
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.