Maximum Likelihood Deconvolution of Beamforming Images with Signal-Dependent Speckle Fluctuations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done research on conventional beamforming output with signal-dependent speckle fluctuations from Gaussian random fields using small-aperture linear arrays based on maximum likelihood estimation. The paper is worth publishing however following comments may increase the quality of paper

1.  The title of the paper is too long. It should be concise and complete.

2. The literature review in introduction is not up to mark. Additionally, your own research is not defined well. I would suggest elaborating your research work with more clarity.

3. Some key papers are not cited. Key papers on beamforming should be cited in Introduction. I would suggest citing following papers 

M-ary nonlinear sine chirp spread spectrum for underwater acoustic communication based on virtual time-reversal mirror method

S Liu, HH Zuberi, Y Lou, MB Farooq, S Shaikh, W Raza EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking 2021 (1), 112   Adaptive Joint Channel Estimation of Digital Self-Interference Cancelation in Co-time Co-frequency Full-Duplex Underwater Acoustic Communication ZS Liu, QJ Zhou, WS Gan, G Qiao, M Bila 2019 IEEE International Conference on Signal, Information and Data   Deep-Neural-Network-Based Receiver Design for Downlink Non-Orthogonal Multiple-Access Underwater Acoustic Communication HH Zuberi, S Liu, M Bilal, A Alharbi, A Jaffar, SAH Mohsan, A Miyajan, ... Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 11 (11), 2184   4. Section 3 describes the basics of MLE. This is available in textbooks. It should be modified by your own research.   5. The novelty and research content are very less throughout the paper. I would highly suggest adding more significant results and do comparison with the previous research, so your work is worth publishing.    Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is not up to the mark. There are tremendous typos and grammatical mistakes. I would suggest proofreading the paper several times and enhance the quality of English writing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- The title of paper is too long, please revise it to be shorter (I think it must be less than 10 words)

2- Caption of most of Figures are too long, it is look like one complete paragraph, please revise it to be not more than two lines  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents new M-DCV and AM-DCV algorithms to improve traditional beamforming method, and thest algorithms needs less array elements, and this paper used simulation and experiment data to validate the new algorithms.

And there are some questions that the reviewer would like to know the answer,

1. what's the strong scatters in figure 13 and figure 15? the reviewers would like to know what kind of scatters it may be briefly.

2."the AM-DCV algorithm will greatly reduce the computation time", could the authors show the result of AM-DCV in reducing computation time, either use the simulation data or the experiment data.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No comment to the author.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have implemented all the comments and paper is perfect for publication

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper should be proofread again and quality of English should be enhanced.