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,
Thank you for clearly addressing all the reviewers' comments. I confirm that the quality of your paper is improved. The paper is now ready for publication in light of this revision.
Best wishes,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Xiangjie Kong, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
All the concerns have been addressed. The paper can be accepted in its current state.
NA
NA
NA
no comment
no comment
no comment
The authors have addressed all the comments and the editorial quality has been improved. Therefore, I recommend publishing the paper in the current form.
Dear authors,
Thank you for submitting your article. The reviewers’ comments are now available. Your article has not been recommended for publication in its current form. However, we encourage you to address the reviewers' concerns and criticisms; particularly regarding methods, experimental design and validity, and resubmit your article once you have updated it accordingly.
Best wishes,
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. 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 should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
Having thoroughly examined your paper entitled " Adaptive Control for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Based on Communication Information Optimization in Complex Environments," I commend your efforts in advancing the field. However, I would like to offer some constructive suggestions:
Begin by clearly defining ATT-Bi-LSTM to ensure readers grasp the methodology right from the start.
Smooth Transition Between Sections: Ensure a smoother transition between sections, especially between the introduction and the methodology, to maintain a coherent flow of ideas.
Highlight Practical Implications: Discuss the practical implications of the proposed framework for industries utilizing UAV technology, going beyond the academic context.
Include Limitations Section: Introduce a section that discusses the limitations of your proposed method, acknowledging potential challenges and areas for future improvement.
Address Empirical Data Limitations: Clearly state any limitations or constraints related to the use of optical system data for empirical validation.
Consider incorporating visual aids, such as diagrams or charts, to illustrate the ATT-Bi-LSTM framework and its components for better reader comprehension.
Strengthen the conclusion by summarizing the key findings and emphasizing the broader impact of your research on the field.
Maintain consistency in the usage of terminology and acronyms throughout the paper for a more polished presentation.
Conduct a final proofreading pass to ensure the clarity and coherence of the entire manuscript, addressing any potential grammatical or typographical errors.
NA
No comment
No comment
No comment
I have the following minor concerns that need to be addressed before any possible recommendation.
1. Establish an area for research by highlighting the importance of the topic, and/or making general statements about the topic, and/or presenting an overview of current research on the subject.
2. Identify a research niche by opposing an existing assumption, and/or revealing a gap in existing research, and/or formulating a research question or problem, and/or continuing a disciplinary tradition.
3. Place this research within the research niche by stating the intent of our study, outlining the key characteristics of your research, describing important results, and giving a brief overview of the structure of the paper.
4. Methodology -- were the techniques used to identify, gather, and analyze the data appropriate to addressing the research problem? Was the sample size appropriate? Were the results effectively interpreted and reported?
5. Although the Results section must provide a detailed description of the data collected, there needs to be a critical synthesis and comparison of the findings in the analysis of the results.
6. Justify Real-Time Adjustments: Elaborate on the specific scenarios where real-time adjustments of UAV parameters become critical for flight safety and efficacy.
7. Include a more extensive comparative analysis with existing methods to showcase the uniqueness and superiority of ATT-Bi-LSTM.
8. Clearly articulate how the attention mechanism amplifies the LSTM network's output, contributing to optimal UAV positioning
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.