Digital Twin to Control and Monitor an Industrial Cyber-Physical Environment Supported by Augmented Reality
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Writing part is a bit casual. Please improvise. Like "Thanks to this, new approaches to data......."
2. Line 69. "Several enabling technologies contribute to creating..........." This should be Several enabling technologies contribute for creating.....OR Several enabling technologies contribute for creating....
3. Provide literature review in a tabular form, with column names as: S.No. Year, Authors, Citations, Main point-1, Main point-2, etc.
4. Line no 200-204; Do not use numbering as 1.2.3. instead use i, ii, iii
5. Figure quality should be improved. It is blurred at this moment.
6. In Table1, what is Title 1 and Title 3?
7. Title of Table 2 should be changed. Authors have pasted directly from template without change.
8. Write titles of all tables and figures with a bit detailing. Like change the title for Figure 5 and 7.
Moderate changes required.
Author Response
Digital Twin to control and monitor an industrial cyber-physical environment supported by augmented reality
Best regards,
We would like to thank the reviewers for their careful and thorough reading of this paper and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this paper. Our response continues (the comments of the reviewers are in italics).
Response to Reviewer #1:
- Writing part is a bit casual. Please improvise. Like "Thanks to this, new approaches to data......."
Reply: The change was made
- Line 69. "Several enabling technologies contribute to creating..........." This should be Several enabling technologies contribute for creating.....OR Several enabling technologies contribute for creating....
Reply: The change was made
- Provide literature review in a tabular form, with column names as: S.No. Year, Authors, Citations, Main point-1, Main point-2, etc.
Reply: The change was made
- Line no 200-204; Do not use numbering as 1.2.3. instead use i, ii, iii
Reply: The change was made
- Figure quality should be improved. It is blurred at this moment.
Reply: The figure was changed
- In Table1, what is Title 1 and Title 3?
Reply: The change was made
- Title of Table 2 should be changed. Authors have pasted directly from template without change.
Reply: The name was added
- Write titles of all tables and figures with a bit detailing. Like change the title for Figure 5 and 7.
Reply: The name was added
Reviewer 2 Report
line 72-74: The sentence is speaking about 2021 as will be in the future. Anyway, there should be statistical data about 2021, not a referred paper.
line 97: should be Industry 4.0
line 106: should be "of Industry 4.0 DT"
line 131: the DT and digital shadow is not the same, the differences should be stated
line 145: the full name of the ERP should be in the line 105 by the first use
line 160: period instead of comma
line 182: please provide a better quality Figure 1
line 183-189: sentences remaining from the paper template
line 251: there is a second Figure 1
line 251: the title of the figure should be changed, because the DT diagram should not contain any physical elements
line 291: The Table 1 has header row from the template
line 293: the sub-chapter is miss numbered
line 299: Table name is taken from the paper template.
line 294: Please define the number of the respondents to the survey.
line 299: R5 is not suitable for a user, the human cannot decide about the real time response, but about the perception of real time response
line 318: the number of packets sent by the sensors are not visible in the graph
The conclusions should fit the results. Despite of some presented results, the conclusions (line 362-367) are not reflecting it. In my opinion the tremendous work of the authors (which I appreciate it, it is not trivial to set up and run adequately the data pipeline through those software's), are not reflected in the results. In line 365 is about "data management and production were improved" but data is not presented. Or in line 366 "to execute and trigger actions ... simultaneously", there is no data presented.
The survey is very fuzzy, it reflects somehow the subjective acceptance of the users (how many users?), but from technical point of view, from applicability in the manufacturing as stated in the title ("industrial cyber-physical environment ") has no relevance.
Please present more and adequate numerical results, because it is pretty to waste your work.
Author Response
Best regards,
We would like to thank the reviewers for their careful and thorough reading of this paper and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this paper. Our response continues (the comments of the reviewers are in italics).
Response to Reviewer #2:
line 72-74: The sentence is speaking about 2021 as will be in the future. Anyway, there should be statistical data about 2021, not a referred paper.
line 97: should be Industry 4.0
line 106: should be "of Industry 4.0 DT"
line 131: the DT and digital shadow is not the same, the differences should be stated
line 145: the full name of the ERP should be in the line 105 by the first use
line 160: period instead of comma
line 182: please provide a better quality Figure 1
line 183-189: sentences remaining from the paper template
line 251: there is a second Figure 1
line 251: the title of the figure should be changed, because the DT diagram should not contain any physical elements
line 291: The Table 1 has header row from the template
line 293: the sub-chapter is miss numbered
line 299: Table name is taken from the paper template.
line 294: Please define the number of the respondents to the survey.
line 299: R5 is not suitable for a user, the human cannot decide about the real time response, but about the perception of real time response
line 318: the number of packets sent by the sensors are not visible in the graph
Reply: All changes were made
The conclusions should fit the results. Despite of some presented results, the conclusions (line 362-367) are not reflecting it. In my opinion the tremendous work of the authors (which I appreciate it, it is not trivial to set up and run adequately the data pipeline through those software's), are not reflected in the results. In line 365 is about "data management and production were improved" but data is not presented. Or in line 366 "to execute and trigger actions ... simultaneously", there is no data presented.
Reply: The conclusions were improved
The survey is very fuzzy, it reflects somehow the subjective acceptance of the users (how many users?), but from technical point of view, from applicability in the manufacturing as stated in the title ("industrial cyber-physical environment ") has no relevance.
Reply: The survey was explained in greater detail
Reviewer 3 Report
There are some serious shortcomings of the paper, that must be addressed.
1. The way you have presented your methods section is currently unsatisfactory. A segment from your draft, shown below, indicates a lack of proofreading:
“The Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details to allow others to replicate and build on the published results. Please note that the publication of your manuscript implies that you must make all materials, data, computer code, and protocols associated with the publication available to readers. Please disclose any restrictions on the availability of materials or information at the submission stage. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited.”
The above paragraph reads more like instructions for manuscript submission rather than the actual content of the materials and methods section.
Lack of Rigorous Methodology: The methodology section is severely lacking in sufficient detail. In its current state, the procedure of your experiment is not replicable. Precise steps need to be outlined, down to the software and hardware versions used, data collection and analysis methods, and any statistical tests employed. For a paper of this nature, rigor in experimental design and methodology is crucial. Without it, your findings lose credibility.
2. Inadequate Data Presentation: The results section of your manuscript appears as a set of observations lacking necessary context or a structured presentation of data. For instance, the data collection methodology, particularly your survey design and selection of respondents, is not clearly explained. A well-conducted survey involves more than just the compilation of a few questions. Furthermore, there is ambiguity in how the findings correspond to your initial hypotheses. Data should be showcased in a manner that is easily comprehensible, ideally through the use of clear, well-labelled figures or tables. Without such presentation, your findings lack credibility and consequently, their scientific merit is diminished.
3. Lack of Critical Analysis: Your discussion section fails to provide a critical analysis of your findings, nor does it provide comparisons to relevant literature in the field. It is not enough to merely present results; there needs to be a thorough interpretation and reflection on these results. Discuss how your findings align or diverge from the existing body of literature. Also think of the limitations of your study and how they may have impacted your findings. In its current form, the work fails to make a meaningful addition to the field of research and is at risk of being seen as insignificant.
Section-by-Section comments are below and should be addressed as well.
Abstract:
The abstract lacks adequate information about your research methods and key findings. It should provide a clear, concise overview of your study, but as it stands, readers might struggle to understand the purpose and outcomes of your research.
Introduction:
The introduction fails to provide a clear context for the study. The justification for the study is not convincingly argued, and the objectives are unclear. The literature review seems patchy, with some relevant studies missing, and some included studies not clearly tied to the research question. The hypothesis or research question needs to be more clearly stated and linked to the body of existing research on this topic.
Methodology:
The methodology section lacks the level of detail necessary to replicate the study. You have to describe in detail the specific tools, techniques, and statistical methods used. Also explain how the data was gathered and processed.
Results:
The current presentation of your results seems somewhat unclear and lacks the necessary depth. You must ensure that core information is not just presented but done so with clarity. The absence of statistical analysis further weakens the claims made in your study. To improve the readability and comprehension of your results, I recommend a more thoughtful use of tables, figures, and graphs. These tools not only aid in visually expressing data but also can provide your audience with a more intuitive grasp of your findings.
Discussion and Conclusion:
The discussion currently falls short in connecting your findings back to your initial research objectives (also these are not clearly identified) and the broader body of existing literature. A comprehensive critical analysis of your results, along with their broader implications, is essential to increase the value of your paper. As it stands now, the paper lacks this critical aspect. Also, there is a clear need to recognize and address the limitations of your study. A solid assessment of how these limitations might have influenced your findings will strengthen the credibility of your work. Finally, in your conclusion, aim for an effective summation of the study's key discoveries and their significance within a larger context. Simply put, the readers should leave with a clear understanding of what was learned and why it matters.
Figures
The quality of the figures is not good at all and must be improved.
Overall, this manuscript requires considerable attention and major revisions across all sections. Pay particular attention to the detailing of your research methodology, ensuring it is complete and well-documented. The results section is another area that could use additional details to better represent your findings. However, the most critical area that needs significant improvement is the discussion section. At present, your paper barely explores the interpretations, meanings, and implications of your results, which is a crucial element of any scholarly research. This omission makes the paper feel incomplete and lacking in academic rigor. As it stands, the paper's current state does not meet the standards required for publication in any journal.
The manuscript presents problems that extend far beyond the scope of language. While enhancing the quality of English used in the text could indeed be beneficial, the current state of the manuscript raises deeper concerns that overshadow any linguistic shortcomings. At this point, improvements to the language would not significantly impact the overall quality of the manuscript.
Author Response
Best regards,
We would like to thank the reviewers for their careful and thorough reading of this paper and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this paper. Our response continues (the comments of the reviewers are in italics).
Response to Reviewer #2:
line 72-74: The sentence is speaking about 2021 as will be in the future. Anyway, there should be statistical data about 2021, not a referred paper.
line 97: should be Industry 4.0
line 106: should be "of Industry 4.0 DT"
line 131: the DT and digital shadow is not the same, the differences should be stated
line 145: the full name of the ERP should be in the line 105 by the first use
line 160: period instead of comma
line 182: please provide a better quality Figure 1
line 183-189: sentences remaining from the paper template
line 251: there is a second Figure 1
line 251: the title of the figure should be changed, because the DT diagram should not contain any physical elements
line 291: The Table 1 has header row from the template
line 293: the sub-chapter is miss numbered
line 299: Table name is taken from the paper template.
line 294: Please define the number of the respondents to the survey.
line 299: R5 is not suitable for a user, the human cannot decide about the real time response, but about the perception of real time response
line 318: the number of packets sent by the sensors are not visible in the graph
Reply: All changes were made
The conclusions should fit the results. Despite of some presented results, the conclusions (line 362-367) are not reflecting it. In my opinion the tremendous work of the authors (which I appreciate it, it is not trivial to set up and run adequately the data pipeline through those software's), are not reflected in the results. In line 365 is about "data management and production were improved" but data is not presented. Or in line 366 "to execute and trigger actions ... simultaneously", there is no data presented.
Reply: The conclusions were improved
The survey is very fuzzy, it reflects somehow the subjective acceptance of the users (how many users?), but from technical point of view, from applicability in the manufacturing as stated in the title ("industrial cyber-physical environment ") has no relevance.
Reply: The survey was explained in greater detail
Reviewer 4 Report
Interesting work that investigates digital twin technology and its applications in the augmented reality space where industrial variables are to be controlled. I am in favor of its publication.
No edits are needed
Author Response
Best regards,
We would like to thank the reviewers for their careful and thorough reading of this paper and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this paper. Our response continues (the comments of the reviewers are in italics).
Response to Reviewer #4:
- Interesting work that investigates digital twin technology and its applications in the augmented reality space where industrial variables are to be controlled. I am in favor of its publication.
Reply: Thank you very much for the review.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Just go for English editing prior resubmit. After the said iteration it can be accepted.
Just go for English editing prior resubmit. After the said iteration it can be accepted.
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised version is ok.
Satisfactory.
