Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very comprehensive manuscript, unfortunately I do not have experience with intelligent agent systems but as an assistant professor I am interested in all technology that can improve the didactic process.

A couple of minor formatting suggestions:

The code at line 304 should be formatted with fixed sized font and properly aligned for easier reading. If the journal template doesn't specify a format you should follow, try https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/Code_listing for examples. There are a lot of images that do not convey any information, they should be removed and replaced by a short explanation. Clear examples are 6 and 9, but most screenshots could also be removed.

Also, I would have loved to experiment with your platform if it open-source. Maybe deploy a test instance and publish the URL along with the paper?

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

                          Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well written and interesting technical article regarding the design of an Intelligent Lab Companion agent for an Intelligent Virtual Laboratory platform. However, there are too many acronyms, which might overwhelm some readers (for example see line 208).

The reader anticipates to read the description of similar systems in the related work section. However, the authors present general information regarding multi-agent systems instead of specifics regarding other Intelligent Lab Companions and Intelligent Virtual Laboratory platforms. To this end, the authors should consider renaming this section to "Background Theory" and introduce a new section of related work, discussing appropriate systems.  Additionally, when referring to an author it would be preferable not to use their first name (e.g. Line 99, Michael). 

In the "Discussion" section the authors should elaborate further on the outcomes of their work. Additionally, this work would benefit from reporting results of some evaluation with end users. 

The following figures are unreadable and should be replaced: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 and images in Appendix.

Some figures (e.g. 3,4) should be cropped so as to display only important information. Additionally, the authors should ensure that the figures are not stretched (e.g. 11, 17).

Author Response

Respected Reviewer,

                               Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have adequately addressed my comments.

However, despite the fact that the figures were replaced they still remain illegible. 

Please check the following guidelines:  

Select figures that do not display the interface of third-party software (e.g. eclipse) instead crop them appropriately to display only the information that is of interest to the reader Make sure that when displayed at 100% zoom they remain legible Do not stretch the figures when inserting them into the document  Ask someone else, that is not familiar with your work, to tell you whether the figures convey the meaning that you want your readers to receive

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article in this current form needs extensive editing of English language before it can be properly reviewed.