Review of Collision Avoidance and Path Planning Algorithms Used in Autonomous Underwater Vehicles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper "Review of collision avoidance and path planning algorithms used in Autonomous Underwater Vehicles" is a very interesting scientific work, which allows the reader to comprehend the problem of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles, through a simulations review.
Although, the paper is well organized, the abstract should be improved with some results and short comparison between the most relevant simulations.
The references are plenty and relevant for the research review.
The results are graphically represented in figures 19-24.
The conclusion chapter was is to short. It may be enhanced by providing comparisons between results or statistical observations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The contribution claimed by the Author of this manuscript:
“The novelty of the review paper is to consider not only the results of numerical research but also the newest results of verifying collision avoidance and path planning algorithms in real applications together with a comparison of the difficulties encountered during simulations and their practical implementation. Finally, the general summary, future works, and limitations that inhabit the further development in this field are discussed”
The English writing, technical writing, organization and presentation quality of this work is really nice. Abstract and Conclusions provide a very clear idea about this work and author’s contributions. Even though it is a very comprehensive study, but several references are out dated. In my personal opinion, it shows good research contributions and I have found some knowledge as well. I have noticed some issues which authors must address to improve the quality of this work.
1) In the Introduction, it is highly recommended to provide a Table comparing your work with existing reviews or surveys. From the Tables, readers can fastly know the contributions of each study.
2) The provided Tables are not comprehensive. Authors should check some published surveys and follow Tables presentation with significant details.
3) The presentation of figures is not attractive at all. Author must properly arrange rather than just copy pasting in manuscript.
4) Figures description does not provide complete information. Authors are suggested to add more discussion about it.
5) Abbreviation list is good as it will enhance better readability for readers.
6) How to justify results claimed in Figures 19 and 20? Can you provide as a Supplementary material to verify?
7) Based on your analysis, which approach is the best suitable option for collision avoidance in harsh underwater environment?
8) Future works and Bottlenecks are nicely discussed and it can help relevant research fraternity.
9) Overall, the discussion is relevant sections is well presented with sufficient reference literature.
10) Subsection 2.7, the author should provide more sufficient discussion and reference literature.
11) It is suggested to add a short summary in start of each section.
12) Authors should reconfirm the number of AI methods in real application.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
