24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

wen0081

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 53.2
红花: 1
帖子: 31
在线: 81.5小时
虫号: 1084826
注册: 2010-08-30
专业: 导航、制导与传感技术

[求助] 大家帮我看看这个评审意见机会多大已有4人参与

两个审稿人，1#给了一堆意见，最后还一个re-submit，感觉好像对我文章印象特别不好；2#就是几个不痛不痒的小意见，这个就不帖了。编辑的意见是算中立吗，还是差评啊？不知道修改希望大否？时间也给的很紧，下个月21号前就修回，而且还要求签版权协议，用WORD版本投稿，排版按照新的要求等。
Reviewers' comments:

AE Comments: There are some clarity and consistency issues with the paper. Please address all comments from the two reviewers and submit your responses and a revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1: The paper deals with a very specific problem, "Bank-to-Turn Guidance Law with Terminal Impact Angle Constraint". The paper is difficult to read and follow the development. For example, right in the abstract they mention the following,

- "The new zero effort miss-distance (ZEM)including position and angle control terms is introduced". Since it is a zero effort miss-distance, why is the angle control a part of this term? To me the definition of ZEM and their specification of the same are inconsistent.

- "Then the BTT guidance law can be implemented in another form constructed by usable variables and hence is of practical use". What does this mean? Are there instances of guidance laws that involve useless variables?

- "When using the BTT guidance law, the acceleration command will keep above the zero and thereby avoid the singularity problem" Is the singularity at zero and/or below zero? Why is the acceleration command above zero (this statement is strange)?

Throughout the rest of the paper "constraint" is spelled as "constrain".

The introduction is very poorly written. Instead of saying look at BTT in references [1-4], the authors should summarize the literature relevant to their problem and how their approach is better or different from these.

Line 26: The arctangent function is often used to computer the roll angle command (compute not computer)

Line 28: Citation issue to be fixed.

Line 33, 34: Doesnt make sense.

Line 58: "Inertial" and not Initial

Line 62: "Inertial" and not Initial

Line 72: autopilot "dynamics"

Lines 82, 84: What are "status"?

From equation 8 onwards the analysis is wrong.

V is a function of tgo and tgo is (tF - t). Clearly, tgo is a function of time.

The authors specify an explicit time dependent Lypaunov function. However the stability analysis is the same as for an autonomous nonlinear system.

Line 123: The equation doesnt makes sense. dM = ? Is it a variation in M? If so then there should be RHS terms involving variations in other dependent quantities as well.

After this the results didnt make any sense. I think the paper is not complete mathematically. There are inconsistent mix and match of variations, derivatives etc without proper explanation.

The paper may have results but at this point, I dont follow their mathematics. I suggest they clean up the derivations and re-submit.

回复此楼