Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The present study proposes a solution that merges the AR task-support software platform with the general contents description format and also assesses the adaptability of the AR software platform to industrial environments and different types of tasks. The information provided allows forming an overview on the proposed AR solution. The evaluation methodology is good, and the results are convincing.

Regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We are grateful to the reviewer for these valuable and constructive comments that have helped us improve our paper.

 

Point1：

The present study proposes a solution that merges the AR task-support software platform with the general contents description format and also assesses the adaptability of the AR software platform to industrial environments and different types of tasks. The information provided allows forming an overview on the proposed AR solution. The evaluation methodology is good, and the results are convincing.

 

Answer：

We gratefully appreciate for reading our paper carefully and giving the above positive comments. We have modified some words and grammar to make the expression more precise. In this revised version, changes to our manuscript were all highlighted within the document by using colored text (Red for the deletions and blue for the additions). Many thanks for your kind comment.

 

The revised manuscript can be seen the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

This paper is about assembly and maintenance tasks based on augmented reality. This paper includes high-quality system implementation and user study. Everybody knows assembly tasks important, however, there are few research activities about real assembly tasks.

However, the paper lacks consistency. The title started as 'General software platform.' It means this paper propose 'a software platform'. In the Introduction, the paper discussed two research questions, R1 and R2. In section 6.3, the paper shows another Hypothesis, which is not about the general software platform. It seems that this paper is a combination of two or three similar papers. 

- in 346, a reference is missed.

I want to ask the authors to focus on one topic and make it consistent. 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your hard work and positive comments. These comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied the comments carefully and have tried our best to modify the manuscript to meet the requirements of Information, MPDI. The revised manuscript can be seen in the attachment.

 

We are grateful to the reviewer for these valuable and constructive comments that have helped us improve our paper. I very much agree with your point of view. Based on your comments, I conclude that there are inconsistencies in three important parts of the manuscript.

• The title of the thesis
• Research questions
• Experimental hypothesis

 

In summary, we highlight six major changes:

1) Title revised for better summarizing the proposal and keep consistency of the research questions of this work. We revised the title to: General Software Platform and Content Description Format for Assembly and Maintenance Task Based on Augmented Reality

 

2) To clear the research question, we rewrote line 59 to line 68 in Section 1 (Introduction). Added relevant information from manuscript to the research question in line 73,74,77,78,79,84,85.

 

3) To clear answer the research question. First, we rewrote the evaluation method (from line 876 to 918) of R2. We have added a more in-depth discussion (from line 1324 to 1349) to answer two research questions (software platform and content description format) of this work.

 

4) To clear the relationship between research question and hypothesis of user study. We add explanation from line 1038 to 1049.

 

5) Reorganized related work. Moreover, we reorganized the introduction to motivate the paper and clarify the research gap by adding more related works, i.e., adding new 18 related papers).

 

6) We also strengthened the flow and clarity by removing errors of grammars and equivocal descriptions.

 

In this revised version, the changes to our manuscript were all highlighted within the document by using colored text (Red for the deletions context and blue for the revisions and new context).

 

Point 1 :

However, the paper lacks consistency. The title started as 'General software platform.' It means this paper propose 'a software platform'. In the Introduction, the paper discussed two research questions, R1 and R2. In section 6.3, the paper shows another Hypothesis, which is not about the general software platform. It seems that this paper is a combination of two or three similar papers.

 

Answer :

We appreciate the reviewer, for these encouraging words and positive comments, as they do improve the clarity of our study. We are grateful for your comments and totally agree that we can address your concerns in this revision. In detail:

1) As the reviewer concerned, this paper focuses on two parts: i) how to build a software platform for assembly and maintenance task, and ii) the corresponding content description format that bridges the users and platform design. Hence, we first modified the title of this paper to“General Software Platform and Content Description Format for Assembly and Maintenance Task Based on Augmented Reality” to clarify it.

2) We further re-summarized our proposal at end of the Introduction Section. A more comprehensive reconstruction of two research questions: Section 4 (Software Platform) and 5 (Content Description Format) were revised in our new manuscript that keeps the consistency across the whole content. Meanwhile, we organized a flow of the paper at the end of Introduction Section and clarified the correspondences sec-/sub-sections of each research question.

3) We significantly restricted Sections 4, 5, and 6 with an editorial check for consistency and removed redundancy. For example, we added more discussion in Section 6.3, and totally revised Hypothesis Section (now is Section 6.5) to illuminate the consistent relationship between two research questions and hypothesis. All of the revisions can be found in the colored text in the new submission.

 

 

Point 2 :

in 346, a reference is missed.

 

Answer :

Thank you for pointing out our mistake. We now have fixed this issue by adding the corresponding reference. Since the paper has been revised, the revision can be found in line 391 in the new submission.

 

 

Point 3 :

I want to ask the authors to focus on one topic and make it consistent.

 

Answer:

We appreciate your treasured comments and totally agree this paper should be revised to keep consistency. More detail, there are some reasons it is difficult only talk about the software platform or the content description format.

 

1) This study does focus more on the development of the software platform, but it is difficult to see some detail strategies for improving system adaptability in the development instructions of the software platform. By introducing the details of the corresponding content description format of the software platform, readers can see some detailed settings more concretely.

 

2) Considering how to bridge an AR task-support system to developer. We think the detail of content description format should be introduce in this manuscript.

 

The above is our point of view, and we hope that our explanation can reasonably reply to your opinion.

 

In order to maintain the consistency of the article, we also made some adjustments to make the title, research question, experimental hypothesis and discussion of the paper more unified. The details are related to the answer 1.

 

Finally, We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed all my comments. The paper could be published in this state.