Next Article in Journal
Advancements in 3D Heritage Data Aggregation and Enrichment in Europe: Implications for Designing the Jena Experimental Repository for the DFG 3D Viewer
Next Article in Special Issue
An Alternative Audio-Tactile Method of Presenting Structural Information Contained in Mathematical Drawings Adapted to the Needs of the Blind
Previous Article in Journal
Alternative Fiber-Based Paperboard Adhesion Evaluation with T- and Y-Peel Testing
Previous Article in Special Issue
Life Cycle Cost Model for Life Support Systems of Crewed Autonomous Transport for Deep Space Habitation
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Motion Trajectory Prediction in Warehouse Management Systems: A Systematic Literature Review

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(17), 9780; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13179780
by Jakub Belter 1, Marek Hering 1 and Paweł Weichbroth 2,*
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(17), 9780; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13179780
Submission received: 22 July 2023 / Revised: 12 August 2023 / Accepted: 24 August 2023 / Published: 29 August 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a systematic literature review on the application of motion trajectory prediction in warehouse management systems and provides corresponding conclusions and discussions.

1、   In the introduction, the description of the background of warehouse management systems and motion trajectory prediction is not sufficiently clear.

2、   The introduction should delve deeper into explaining the importance and practical application of "motion trajectory prediction" in warehouse management systems. Providing more real-world examples or data to support the research motivation would enhance the persuasiveness of the background.

3、   The number of references in the paper is relatively limited. It is suggested that the authors reevaluate the references used in the literature review to ensure they cover important research in the field, especially relevant methods and applications of motion trajectory prediction in warehouse management systems.

4、   In the paper, not only should existing literature be listed, but it should also be summarized and compared. Existing research can be summarized and categorized based on different methods, and their advantages and limitations should be pointed out. Emphasize the applicability and limitations of each method in warehouse management systems and compare them with other methods to highlight the paper's unique contributions.

5、   Besides merely listing the results of existing research, a more in-depth analysis and evaluation should be conducted. Identify the innovations, shortcomings, and possible improvement directions of each literature. From a practical application perspective, discuss the feasibility and effectiveness of these methods in real warehouse management scenarios.

6、   In the conclusion, the authors can summarize the main findings of the paper and emphasize their unique insights and contributions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The background introduction for motion trajectory prediction in warehouse management Systems is not sufficient, especially for readers who are not familiar with this field.

 

The manuscript contains some long sentences, which can make it challenging to follow. Breaking them down into shorter sentences can improve readability.

 

Its recommended to add some table or sketch map to summarize some vital information.

 

Too many algorithms were introduced in detail in this manuscript, but lack of own analysis, comparison, and summary. And the use of certain terms in these algorithms might be unclear to some readers, especially those who are not familiar with the subject matter. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the author for doing the review in a systematic way and following the PRISMA standard upto a level. However, the PRISMA flow diagram is missing in the manuscript.

The main drawback in this study is the number of sources used is very less. Exactly a 58 number of sources only used and it is very less. Hence, the author needs to improve the number of sources.

In section 4, the author needs to compare the outcomes from each sources, in a tabular format, in each subsection. Along with the tabular data, the author can use graphical comparison also for improving the readability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find our responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

this manuscript meets the quality for publication

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the author for an immaculate response.

Back to TopTop