A Special Robot for Precise Grading and Metering of Mushrooms Based on Yolov5

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are some organizational challenges in the paper that need addressing. For instance, the 'Related Work' section primarily presents the general structure of the proposed study rather than assessing prior works. Additionally, the 'Methods' section appears to be duplicated. Before proceeding, it would be beneficial for the authors to thoroughly review and restructure the manuscript to ensure clarity and coherence.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. More context on why achieving accurate classification and measurement of mushrooms is important? Are there any specific applications or industries where this research would be particularly valuable?

2. More details should be provided about the research-level verification process for mushroom grading based on Yolov5 + OpenCV and the mushroom metering system based on the resistance strain gauge sensor? What were the main steps or methodologies used in these verifications?

3.In the mushroom grading aspect, it is mentioned using the OpenCV visual library to identify the minimum quadrilateral outside the mushroom contour. How does this method ensure accurate size measurement and what advantages does it offer over alternative approaches?

4. Insights into potential future work or improvements that could build upon this research, whether in terms of technology, methodology or applications?

5. Literature review in the introduction section must be enriched, there is only 10 references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

General comments:

In the research article entitled "A special robot for precise grading and metering of mushrooms based on Yolov5, a special robot for precise grading and measurement of mushrooms was constructed based on Yolov5 and OpenCV.

After major revision, I will reconsider if the manuscript is suitable for publication in Applied Sciences.

I suggest some suggestions and corrections to the authors, which are further listed:

Specific comments:

 

1. "special robot", why this is special and needs to be discussed in the "Materials and Methodology"
2. The introduction part should be improved. The introduction should be split into several paragraphs, including more references. At the end of the introduction, objectives should be clearly stated.
3. "2.1. Hardware Establishment" should be briefly stated at first.
4. The size and fonts of the figures (1, 4, 6, and 11) should be improved, and different components of the robot should be marked (Figure 5).
5. Results and Discussion parts should be divided and follow similar procedures as Materials and Methods.
6. In the methodology, some experimental photographs would be more attractive to the readers.

None

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made the necessary adjustments and corrected the organizational planning problem. Additionally, with the corrections made, the publication has become more understandable and legible.

The proposed method in the study has a unique quality, also a real environment robot was used to measure its robustness. The results obtained show that the method is applicable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors endeavored to enhance the introduction and methodology sections; however, the results and discussion segments were found lacking. Regrettably, I cannot recommend this article for publication in Applied Sciences based on these weaknesses.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx