Algorithm of Computer Mainboard Quality Detection for Real-Time Based on QD-YOLO

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

   Thanks so much for your manuscript submission to special issue on MDPI Journal of Electronics. This research article is comprehensively in good shape, while the organization of this paper needs some adjustment, the use of English on this research article is acceptable, in spite that some subsections need improvement. Therefore, I think that applying some edits to improve several problematic issues are necessary, and after addressing all reviewers' comments as suggested, this paper may enter the double-decision process.

   Major problematic issues need to be addressed in your revision:

   a) Abstract: The length of current version is acceptable, however, a few aspects need improvements. The first several sentences can be a bit more concise and coherent in Lines 10-14. QD refers to quality detection, which should be defined at the first occurrence. The presence of your approach need to be a bit more specific, and the concluding remarks (including the keynote quantitative results) related to your experimental study are just acceptable. The overal length after updating should be preserved as current version (180~200 words). Thanks a lot! 

   b) Introduction: The structure of current session generally looks fine, while the use of English should be improved. For instance, I believe the first passage need a major rewrite, due to no citations and lacking in specificity. i.e., why and how did quality detection (QD) become a major challenge in the field of QD in computer mainboard? Why conducting research on YOLO based schemes? What are the possible applications of involved research study? Which are the classical representative works in this area? Also, I think the authors should learn to apply connection sentences and help cohesively distributing the required information. In Lines 41-42 and 67-68, the presence of computer vision technology and quality detection model can be extended with crucial details of typical approaches in category.

   Besides, in Lines 77-89, the main summary on contributions of this paper, need to supplement with a little bit more specific details in each manifold. Also, I think the last paragraph (Lines 90-92) is good enough to summarize the organization on the rest sections of this paper, please specify it as Section 2, ... Section 3, ..., and the last Section 5... etc.

   c) Section 2 (Related Work): This section looks just fine but contains too much simple narrations, and seems only restricted to YOLO based schemes. I have some advice for the co-authors: you may select most representative architecture of the related technical approaches, which might help clarify the visual understandings on each topic. Upon addressing YOLO based methods, other one-stage / two-stage deep learning scheme had better at least be mentioned.  Besides, a table for presenting the tabulated previous studies, can be an alternative plan to make summary on the related work. Thanks!

   d) Section 3: Materials and Methods. In general, it looks fine for the overview and overall architectures. There are still room for further updates on the narrations. Please consider alternative connective words for "but" in each occurrence. Try best to improve the comprehensive quality of literal statements in a few subsections, at least just making them more readable.

   e) Figures and Tables: Most of the tables are fine, while it seems that some figures have shadows, which should be cleared in the updated version. Regarding each table, the 12-pt intervals before and after the tabulated results, should be imposed in the revised version. Also, be sure the linspacing are kept with universal intervals (similar as the MDPI template did).  While the current visual quality of each figure (size, image resolution) are basically acceptable, the font type of each figure (as well as the legends) should be uniform, either using Times New Roman or Palatino Linotype. Besides, please apply middle-alignment for each of the headings. Thanks a lot!

   f) Section 4: I think this section can be named as "Experiments and Results" while the "Discussions" could be possibly shifted into the discussion section, if applicable. I suggest the authors using the evaluation metrics directly applied on your study. Why the Ablation study or sensitivity analysis is so limited or just absent in your quantitative analysis? Do you have any further evidence to demonstrate the applicability of your proposed method when crossing over various datasets without data enhancement (not merely the original one)? Please briefly explain.

   g) Discussions: I may suggest the authors adding a discussion section for presenting some further qualitative analysis, i.e., the limitations of study, some parallel comparison of your proposed work towards the mainstream of latest research topics, and further comments (if any) on the quantitative scores related to performance evaluation. Please apply the required edits.

   h) Section 5: This section had better be entitled with "Conclusions and Future Work". The first paragraph should be filled with some keynote quantitative scores on concluding remarks, and be a bit more specific on what degree of improvement, what are the most representative advantages of shortcomings on your proposed framework? While this paragraph shows a single sentence claiming future work, it is supposed to apply the specified summary of research challenges, and the orientations of prospective study should be a little bit more specific. Please re-arrange this part. Thanks a lot!

   i) References: A few problematic aspects should be addressed. (i) Apply the required abbreviated, italic formats on the title of journals when citing, i.e., "transactions" --> "Trans.". (ii) Fill in the missed information (volume and page numbers) for each conference proceedings and calibrate the citation style. iii) I suggest the authors proceed to review and cite both conventional, newer and latest approaches, in one decade range, especially these paper published in latest three years 2019-2022 which are similar / parallel to your study, can be further enhanced in your upgraded version. These updates will make your citations look even more stronger. (iii) Comply with current MDPI template for other tutorial formats in a list of References at various sources.

   Other minor issues suggested for your edits are listed as below:

   a) To be frank, the literal quality of this research article can be further improved. Quite a few subsections such as introduction, related work and conclusion contain Chinglish and hard conjuctions. I suggest the authors on inviting a native English speaker to carefully polish the writing aspects of this manuscript, which should include grammatical checks and proofreading in your edits before uploading the second version. Thanks very much!

   b) Please eliminate each occurrence of hyphenating in the context. When you are using MS word or Latex, please avoid hyphenating a word (which currently appears multiple time at the end of some lines to cross-over two adjacent lines). The MDPI online template has the options to adjust that.

   c) In some subsections, quite a few "half-spacing" intervals or two adjacent sentences (as well as a bracket followed by the start of a sentence) are just missing, or being doubled. Please fix each occurrence when proofreading.

   d) Align the location of each figure and the statements below. Be sure that the size and position of figures and tables comply with the MDPI template.

   Once again, many thanks and we look foward to reviewing your upgraded version coming into double-decision process, and wish you the best of luck for acceptance at MDPI Journal of Electronics. Stay well and take care!

With warm regards,

Yours sincerely,

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate your valuable comments on making our manuscripts better presented. We have carefully studied these comments and revised our manuscript. Please refer to the attachment.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Tu Guangming

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper: Algorithm of Computer Mainboard Quality Detection for Real- 2 Time Based on QD-YOL

Comments:

1. The introduction section does not recommend the usage of lumped references. It must be stated clearly the main contribution of each work.

2. The section about related work should include a table with a summary of the main existing literature contributions. This table will help readers understand easily your contribution.

3. A complete nomenclature list (following the journal rules) must be included to present all the mathematical symbols and main acronyms presented along with the text.

4. Conclusions require more details regarding the main numerical results reached with this research. In addition, a list with at least three future works can contribute to the continuous development of this research area.

It is important to mention that all the numerical results of the proposed networks and the comparison with other configurations demonstrate the advantages of the proposed QD-YOLO with respect to existing topologies.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate your valuable comments on making our manuscripts better presented. We have carefully studied these comments and revised our manuscript. Please refer to the attachment.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Guangming Tu

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors focus their study on the automated industrial quality detection aiming at improving the efficiency of computer main board quality detection. Towards this direction, the authors introduce and attention based quality detection algorithm for computer mainboards by embedding a composite attention module in the network backbone and identifying feature channels and improving feature fusion structure. The manuscript is overall well written and easy to follow and the authors have well thought out their main contributions. The provided analysis of the proposed framework is detailed and thorough and the authors have provided a straightforward discussion enabling the average reader to easily follow it. The authors are encouraged to consider the following suggestions provided by the reviewer in order to improve the scientific depth of their manuscript, as well as they need to address the following comments in order to improve the quality of presentation of their manuscript. Initially, the provided discussion sections 1 and 2 is quite verbose and needs to be substantially rewritten in order to be presented by using more summative language enabling the average reader to identify the research contributions that have already been performed in the literature and the research gaps that the authors try to address. There are several research venues, such as Grieco, Luigi Alfredo, et al., eds. Ad-Hoc, Mobile, and Wireless Networks: 19th International Conference on Ad-Hoc Networks and Wireless, ADHOC-NOW 2020, Bari, Italy, October 19–21, 2020, Proceedings. Vol. 12338. Springer Nature, 2020, where the examined research problem has been thoroughly discussed and the authors are highly encouraged to follow the state-of-the-art and better present the related work. In section 3, the authors need to include a table summarizing the main notation that has been used in the paper which currently is quite excessive. In Section 4, at the beginning, the authors need to include an additional subsection providing a discussion regarding the implementation cost of the proposed method. Furthermore, section 4.1 needs to be substantially revised in order to thoroughly describe the experimental setup that the authors consider for their experimental results. Finally, the overall manuscript needs to be checked for typos, syntax, and grammar errors in order to improve the quality of its presentation.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate your valuable comments on making our manuscripts better presented. We have carefully studied these comments and revised our manuscript. Please refer to the attachment.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Guangming Tu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed in detail the reviewers comments and the quality of presentation as well as the scientific depth of their manuscript have been substantially improved. This reviewer has no further concerns regarding this paper.