Next Article in Journal
A Method Used to Improve the Dynamic Range of Shack–Hartmann Wavefront Sensor in Presence of Large Aberration
Next Article in Special Issue
Data Freshness and End-to-End Delay in Cross-Layer Two-Tier Linear IoT Networks
Previous Article in Journal
Use of High-Resolution Multispectral UAVs to Calculate Projected Ground Area in Corylus avellana L. Tree Orchard
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Application of a LPWAN for Upgrading Proximal Soil Sensing Systems
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

AI Based Digital Twin Model for Cattle Caring

Sensors 2022, 22(19), 7118; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22197118
by Xue Han 1,*,†, Zihuai Lin 1,†, Cameron Clark 2,†, Branka Vucetic 1 and Sabrina Lomax 2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sensors 2022, 22(19), 7118; https://doi.org/10.3390/s22197118
Submission received: 27 April 2022 / Revised: 21 August 2022 / Accepted: 10 September 2022 / Published: 20 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wireless Sensing and Networking for the Internet of Things)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled ' AI Based Digital Twin Model for Cattle Caring
' has been organized well. The language of the manuscript is clear. The required literature summary and material and methods have been presented appropriately. I found the paper to be somewhat interesting. However, the below issues should be addressed if the authors would like to pursue its publication.

  1. specify the accuracy in abstract.
  2. In the introduction, the motivation of the paper needs to be articulated far more clearly.

  3. Furthermore, where are the limitations of your study? Clarifying the limitations of a study allows the readers to understand better under which conditions the results should be interpreted.

  4. Clearly specify the contribution in introduction section.
  5. Very limited literature review is presented, add LR from more recent papers.
  6.  Fig.1 The digital twin model of the cattle, what does it mean?
  7. Fig 2 is not readable. Modify.
  8. Provide statistical summary of data set.
  9. Labels of fig 5 are  not readable.
  10. Why Gaussian fitting is preferred? justify.
  11. No need to separate conclusion in two separate sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The review is added as PDF files. (vgl. review.pdf) Please cover all concerns.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, I reviewed your updated version of the paper and see that you corrected the main concern made by me on your initial submission. With the parts about the cattle's pain deleted, the soundness of the work is completely given. The other parts criticized, like the missing references to existing literature or the quality of the plots, have been  refined as well.

 

Besides a final check of the spelling, the paper should be ready to be published.

 

All the Best,

reviewer 2

Back to TopTop