Three-Dimensional Indoor Visible Light Positioning with a Tilt Receiver and a High Efficient LED-ID
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The submission addresses a very interesting research topic. The approach is well-described and the results are interesting.
Introduction should be clearly stated research questions and targets first. Then answer several questions: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What is aim of this study? What are the research questions? What are your contributions?
The related work section should provide more information about the differences between the cited solutions and the proposed paper, exposing the improvements introduced. Maybe a table resuming and comparing the characteristics of the different strategies could be provided. The authors should also consider the following work: Calibrating indoor positioning systems with low efforts. Therefore, the Related Section should be improved since the existing literature is missing and needed in order to point out the novelty of the presented work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents interesting research in area of VLP. The idea of VLP is known and many related research can be found (and they are correctly cited in the paper).
In this paper authors present results of the research conducted with tilt receiver and triple LED positioning. Additionally, they optimize placement of two-colour LEDs to minimize number of bits needed to code LED identifiers.
The research was conducted in a proper way, keeping required scientific approach. The conclusions are drawn properly.
My main research concerns:
- How the error varies with increasing of an angle of tilt. In the paper only one angle was verified.
- The assumption of the paper was to use 3 LEDs. Probable use of more LEDs (if registered by receiver) would bring benefits especially in situations with a partially obscured view.
Addressing these issues would increase the scientific value of the research.
The paper is written in a proper language, very clear and easy to read. There are a little number of typos and other issues:
- Line 44 - is-based => IS-based
- Lines 55-58 - the sentence could be rebuilt - now it consists of sentence equivalents, sentences in past tense and sentences in present tense.
- Lines 59-62 - as above.
- Lines 76-77 - I did not understand link between practise and aesthetics.
- Lines 87-88 - I did not understand the sentence, "to put into forward".
- Line 165 - no need to capitalize 'We".
- Line 259 - past tense better fits.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This new version is much improved from the original.
It is better structured and focused more tightly on the actual topic.
Overall, the revised version of the paper includes the majority of the proposed changes.
I have no significant issues with this version.
