NURBS-Based Parametric Design for Ship Hull Form

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find the attached file for detailed comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for sharing your interesting work. The comments below for your attention:

1. The title can be improved. It can simply be "NURBS-Based Parametric Design for Ship Hull Form" or something similar. I do not see any value in adding "Research on" in the title.
2. The abstract must be improved. Currently, there is no indication of the statement of the problem your research addresses,  what previous research has done, and the main reason(s)/rationale/goals for your research.
3. The introduction should be rewritten. 19 papers are cited within 2 and a half lines! The literature review should be presented in a much more concise and organized manner. Also, I believe some recent works on the application of NURBS in ship hull form design are missing. Some similar work might exist and should be studied and reported. Most importantly, the research gap is missing, which should be explicitly highlighted in the introduction!
4. Section 5, can be renamed as 'Results and Discussion'.
5. The rest of the manuscript appears to be well explained and professionally presented.

As explained above, the authors need to review recently published similar works and explicitly highlight the research gap that is addressed by them. 

Also, I found inappropriate self-citations in this manuscript  -18 out of 42  cited papers (which is more than 40%). 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments on “Research on a NURBS-Based Parametric Design Method for Hull Form”

This manuscript proposed a non-uniform rational basis spline (NURBS) based parametric design method for hull form and it to model the deformation of a ship hull surface. It’s well written and the paper can be accepted subject to a minor revision.

Abstract can be written in a more informative way, including little details on the key findings of the research. The introduction is well developed. A good review of the past studies is provided. The contribution of the paper compared to the past literature, in particular [29, 30], can be better outlined.

Most of the information In Section 2 are already presented in the literature. Therefore, this section can be shortened and merged with Section 3.

Section 4 and 5 read well. However, they both lack ‘discussion’. Some results can be better discussed. Some comparisons with other existing tools can be useful. How did authors validate their results? An experimental setup might be also useful in this regard. The sources of data are not clear. More details in this regard will be helpful.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is based on reference [30]. The contributions and differences over [30] must be clearly stated. In addition, the technical content and the English writing of the manuscript must be strongly improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have completed all the required reviews

Reviewer 4 Report

I recommend publication