Design and Implementation of Intelligent Automated Production-Line Control System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a very important issue: design of intelligent system for production but at this stage this work should be improved significantly.

2. In the section “introduction” the description of approaches to build the intelligent system for production is not sufficient. Please express the areas of application for intelligent manufacturing. Please revise the structure of your theoretical background section. You should present the findings from different authors and please do not  miss to implement the research model as well as a research gap. So please extend your introduction this area and add the sources: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11091151; https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5495. Please specify what kind of the integration in CPS is proposed. How is it described in other articles?
3. Materials and methods - the flow of system is generally missing in the materials and method section. Figure 1 - the right side is illegible.
4. Section – communication- please describe the new approach to the integration between objects.
5. Section 4 – Figure 12 should be presented in earlier parts of the article. Similarly, Figure 13. What type of IoT sensors have been used? The description of the "intelligent production" module is missing. What method was used?
6. Discussion: this section is missing. There is no comparison to the literature. The authors should explain the difference with other systems found in the literature.

Author Response

Please see the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review.

The article deals with the actual scientific and practical task of developing an automated system for controlling a production line. Software designed and implemented. Production line introduced.

Please find attached the comments for the paper.

Notes:

1. The text contains a sufficiently large number of inaccuracies in the text and description of the results. The generally accepted structure of a scientific article has been violated: the problem, the statement of the problem, the ways of its solution, the results in the form of an assessment of the effectiveness of the proposed approaches.
2. Comments are provided in the text by itself. Proofread the text and use common abbreviations.
3. The term intelligent system is used. It should be noted more clearly.
4. The concept of the internet of things (IoT) is used. I would like a description in the article: where, what, how.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Basically the work can be seen as a description of a technical solution. There is not clear the research problem and achievements found by the authors.  Certainly, there was invested a lot of effort in building the presented solution, but strictly from the scientific point of view it is hard to identify some claimable contributions.
If the authors wish to improve their work and resubmit it as scientific article, there is suggested to establish a goal, a research methodology, perform some investigations, present results such as performances, eventually comparisons with results from other publications.

There also should be checked the whole paper and must be fixed the typing, grammar and language of the text. Few examples are listed below.

typing issues:
line 15: "blacks"

language and terms usage improvement recommended:
line 15-16: statement "Users can plan the control flow and connect the control flow of function blocks to control the action of the machine. " - there is not clear to what is connected the "the control flow of function blocks";
line 16: "the control flow of function blocks ..." weird construction;
lines 25-26: "intelligent network applicants " not clear this term, can teh authors to explain?

lines 34-35: The statement "Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) [1](an integrated system that combines the field of computer computing with sensors and brake devices)" is out of context;
lines 39-40: " factory of Siemens in Amberg, Germany, can produce 75% of processes " what authors understand by "processes"?

lines 40-63: revision is required for statement "Research and Application of Task Allocation in Multi-robot System, [3] The intelligent factory has been 
developed for many years, but the current multi-robot task assignment mechanism is only applicable to the same robot system";

line 48: Uncomplete sentence: "Robot Collaborative Task Assignment.";
line 60: missing dot "products are separated from the [6] In this research, a visual quality control ..."
line 64: multiple predicates - "[7] In this paper, the techniques are efforts are decreased", and consequently the whole sentence is not clear; citation style is confusing; same right in the following sentence ("[8] Build and evaluate system ...");
and so on.

Author Response

Please see the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I read this paper with a lot of interest. The paper is well written and structured. Overall it provides an interesting approach but I have several concerns for the contribution of this paper.

• I do not see what is the novelty of the paper and what is the contribution. Authors need to specify what are new things that this paper brings into literature. The algorithms are well known and the fact that there is a graphical part is not enough to contribute to the literature.
• There are no actual results provided. It looks to me that the paper is more of a concept paper.
• There is no comparison with other methods; thus we cannot say whether the controller works well.
• Please replace “IOT” with “IoT”. This is the correct abbreviation.
• Figures 18 and 19 need improvement with regard to resolution

Author Response

Please see the attached file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have significantly improved the text given in the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

please check the read parts of the paper. authors have copy pasted them from the response letter and failed to remove sentences that refer to reeviewer.

the manuscript is marginally publishaable.