The Concept of a Digital Twin in the Arctic Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This paper explores a novel and practically meaningful topic—digital twin application for autonomous driving in Arctic environments, with a clear technical framework. However, supplementing quantitative evidence, expanding scenario coverage, and refining technical details will further enhance its rigor and publication impact.  

1. It is recommended to add quantitative test data (e.g., LiDAR detection accuracy in foggy conditions, simulation-real vehicle braking distance error) to verify the effectiveness of the digital twin system, making the results more convincing.
2. The current simulation scenarios do not include unique Arctic conditions (e.g., polar night low-light environment, ultra-low temperature below -40℃). It is advisable to expand these scenarios and analyze their impacts on device performance (e.g., camera night vision, GPS signal stability) to improve the system’s applicability.
3. Key technical details (e.g., edge computing latency metrics, V2X communication optimization schemes in low temperatures) are not clearly described. It is recommended to supplement these specifics and clarify the data access method to enhance the study’s reproducibility.
4. Although AI is applied in trajectory planning and sensor fusion, no comparison with mainstream algorithms or explanation of Arctic-specific algorithm improvements is provided. It is suggested to add such comparisons to highlight the innovation of the proposed AI modules.

Author Response

Review 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores a novel and practically meaningful topic—digital twin application for autonomous driving in Arctic environments, with a clear technical framework. However, supplementing quantitative evidence, expanding scenario coverage, and refining technical details will further enhance its rigor and publication impact.  

1. It is recommended to add quantitative test data (e.g., LiDAR detection accuracy in foggy conditions, simulation-real vehicle braking distance error) to verify the effectiveness of the digital twin system, making the results more convincing.

Answer: Our paper is on the concept study-level at the moment; therefore this quantitative test data is mostly pending and part of the “future work”.  We have refined the title of the paper and contents of abstract and introduction to reflect this fact, and introduced “Conclusions and future work”-section, in which this specific topic is considered.

1. The current simulation scenarios do not include unique Arctic conditions (e.g., polar night low-light environment, ultra-low temperature below -40℃). It is advisable to expand these scenarios and analyze their impacts on device performance (e.g., camera night vision, GPS signal stability) to improve the system’s applicability.

Answer: These are indeed interesting concepts, and need to be considered in the future work. We have  introduced “Conclusions and future work”-section, in which this specific topic is considered.

1. Key technical details (e.g., edge computing latency metrics, V2X communication optimization schemes in low temperatures) are not clearly described. It is recommended to supplement these specifics and clarify the data access method to enhance the study’s reproducibility.

Answer: As being in a concept study-level at the moment, these metrics are also mainly missing or not-ready work and part of the “future work”.  We have refined the title and contents of abstract and introduction to reflect this fact, and introduced “Conclusions and future work”-section, in which this specific topic is considered.

1. Although AI is applied in trajectory planning and sensor fusion, no comparison with mainstream algorithms or explanation of Arctic-specific algorithm improvements is provided. It is suggested to add such comparisons to highlight the innovation of the proposed AI modules.

Answer: We have taken few new Digital Twin approaches and briefly evaluated the differences compared to our approach, presented in introduction (chapter 1).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main topic of the article titled “Digital Twin in Arctic Environment” is the modeling of a vehicle test track used in Arctic environmental conditions as a high-accuracy Digital Twin environment and its use in the development of intelligent transportation systems (ITS), autonomous vehicles, and road weather services. My thoughts on the study are as follows:

- The article presents an integrated research and testing platform that brings together a physical test track, a Digital Twin, real weather data, and various communication infrastructure components. It aims to demonstrate the advantages of this approach, particularly for the development of autonomous vehicles and ITS applications in challenging Arctic conditions. Considering these reasons, I believe the study is very important in terms of its subject matter.

- The strengths of the article lie in the integrated treatment of a real test track and a high-accuracy Digital Twin environment, focusing on challenging Arctic weather conditions. The study not only offers a theoretical simulation approach but also successfully transfers a physical testbed, supported by real-time road weather stations, on-vehicle sensors (LiDAR, camera, GPS, IMU), and 5G/V2X communication infrastructures, into a virtual environment. - The use of Unreal Engine 5 and high-resolution LiDAR-based 3D modeling ensures environmental realism and reliable analysis of sensor behavior. Furthermore, the systematic treatment of realistic and critical scenarios such as fog, snow, icing, GPS interference, and sudden weather changes increases the practical applicability of the study. Positioning the Digital Twin environment as a test platform open to AI-powered autonomous decision-making, sensor fusion, and road safety applications demonstrates the high added value of the paper from both academic and industrial perspectives.

- The article contains only 8 references. This number is very low for such a comprehensive and important topic. Therefore, I recommend expanding the literature review. Simulator studies in intelligent transportation systems have been used extensively in recent years. By comprehensively describing the similarities and differences compared to these studies, the importance of the research can be further detailed. This will also better highlight the main contribution of the paper. - From a peer-review perspective, the main weakness of the study is the limited quantitative and comparative performance evaluations of the presented Digital Twin platform. While most scenarios are visually and conceptually convincingly defined, the lack of numerical results and statistical analysis to support metrics such as sensor accuracy, detection errors, communication delays, or AI decision performance reduces the measurability of the scientific contribution. I suggest providing more details on this.

- The AI ​​components used in the study are mostly addressed at a conceptual level, but model types, training processes, and comparative analyses are not presented in detail. I recommend providing more details on this topic.

- Finally, the absence of a comparative analysis of the proposed approach with other existing Digital Twin platforms or similar studies makes it difficult to more strongly emphasize the originality and superiority of the method. I made a similar comment when the literature review was expanded. I believe that this comparison will also be revealed by the authors when the literature review is expanded.

Author Response

Review 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main topic of the article titled “Digital Twin in Arctic Environment” is the modeling of a vehicle test track used in Arctic environmental conditions as a high-accuracy Digital Twin environment and its use in the development of intelligent transportation systems (ITS), autonomous vehicles, and road weather services. My thoughts on the study are as follows:

- The article presents an integrated research and testing platform that brings together a physical test track, a Digital Twin, real weather data, and various communication infrastructure components. It aims to demonstrate the advantages of this approach, particularly for the development of autonomous vehicles and ITS applications in challenging Arctic conditions. Considering these reasons, I believe the study is very important in terms of its subject matter.

- The strengths of the article lie in the integrated treatment of a real test track and a high-accuracy Digital Twin environment, focusing on challenging Arctic weather conditions. The study not only offers a theoretical simulation approach but also successfully transfers a physical testbed, supported by real-time road weather stations, on-vehicle sensors (LiDAR, camera, GPS, IMU), and 5G/V2X communication infrastructures, into a virtual environment. - The use of Unreal Engine 5 and high-resolution LiDAR-based 3D modeling ensures environmental realism and reliable analysis of sensor behavior. Furthermore, the systematic treatment of realistic and critical scenarios such as fog, snow, icing, GPS interference, and sudden weather changes increases the practical applicability of the study. Positioning the Digital Twin environment as a test platform open to AI-powered autonomous decision-making, sensor fusion, and road safety applications demonstrates the high added value of the paper from both academic and industrial perspectives.

- The article contains only 8 references. This number is very low for such a comprehensive and important topic. Therefore, I recommend expanding the literature review. Simulator studies in intelligent transportation systems have been used extensively in recent years. By comprehensively describing the similarities and differences compared to these studies, the importance of the research can be further detailed. This will also better highlight the main contribution of the paper.

ANSWER: Two additional references to comparable Digital Twin approaches added, with brief evaluation of differences, presented in introduction (chapter 1).

- From a peer-review perspective, the main weakness of the study is the limited quantitative and comparative performance evaluations of the presented Digital Twin platform. While most scenarios are visually and conceptually convincingly defined, the lack of numerical results and statistical analysis to support metrics such as sensor accuracy, detection errors, communication delays, or AI decision performance reduces the measurability of the scientific contribution. I suggest providing more details on this.

Answer: Our paper is on the concept study-level at the moment; therefore this quantitative test data is mostly pending and part of the “future work”.  We have refined the title and contents of abstract and introduction to reflect this fact. We also composed new “Conclusions and future work”-section, in which this specific topic is considered.

- The AI ​​components used in the study are mostly addressed at a conceptual level, but model types, training processes, and comparative analyses are not presented in detail. I recommend providing more details on this topic.

Answer: As on the concept study-level at the moment, this quantitative test data is mostly pending and part of the “future work”.  We have refined the title and contents of abstract and introduction to reflect this fact.  We also composed new “Conclusions and future work”-section, in which this specific topic is considered.

- Finally, the absence of a comparative analysis of the proposed approach with other existing Digital Twin platforms or similar studies makes it difficult to more strongly emphasize the originality and superiority of the method. I made a similar comment when the literature review was expanded. I believe that this comparison will also be revealed by the authors when the literature review is expanded.

ANSWER: Same answer as literature review, two additional references to comparable Digital Twin approaches added, with brief evaluation of differences, presented in introduction (chapter 1).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript introduces a highly realistic virtual environment that is closely related to the physical test track. It can be used for the development and testing of the autonomous driving systems. Please refer to the comments below for potential improvements:

-The abstract needs to be re-drafted to be self-contained, clearly showing the methodology, techniques, and the results obtained.

- It is suggested to adjust the structure of Section 1. Introduce three parts in a more concise and hierarchical manner in Section 1 [Introduction]: motivation, contribution, and article structure.

- Could the author introduce the "related work"? It is necessary to sort out relevant research to determine whether the research direction of this manuscript is reasonable and advanced.

- The content presented in Figure 2 is overly simplistic. As the main content of Section 2, it is recommended to introduce the main workflow of Digital Twin in the form of a block diagram.

- Regarding the content of Section 3, the workflow of the centralized monitoring center can also be introduced in the form of a block diagram. Can the content of Section 2 and Section 3 be combined for introduction?

- Regarding the content of Section 4, readers may be more interested in knowing how to ensure that the simulation results are consistent with real-world testing. In other words, what is the theoretical foundation of this simulation tool?

- Did the author compare the simulation results with the actual test results to verify the rationality of the method proposed in this manuscript? Because this manuscript neither proposes a relevant theoretical foundation nor verifies the results. It merely introduces the Digital Twin and its application scenarios, and thus cannot ensure the rationality of the method.

- Is this manuscript still unfinished? There is no content after Section 7. Generally, is it necessary to include a "Conclusion" section to provide an overall evaluation of the manuscript and outline future research directions?

Author Response

Review 3

Top of Form

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript introduces a highly realistic virtual environment that is closely related to the physical test track. It can be used for the development and testing of the autonomous driving systems. Please refer to the comments below for potential improvements:

-The abstract needs to be re-drafted to be self-contained, clearly showing the methodology, techniques, and the results obtained.

ANSWER: Abstract is slightly tailored, to be more self-contained and underlining that this is a concept study at this stage.

- It is suggested to adjust the structure of Section 1. Introduce three parts in a more concise and hierarchical manner in Section 1 [Introduction]: motivation, contribution, and article structure.

ANSWER: Introduction section has been improved to introduce the mentioned 3 parts. Article structure presentation created.

- Could the author introduce the "related work"? It is necessary to sort out relevant research to determine whether the research direction of this manuscript is reasonable and advanced.

ANSWER: Two additional references to comparable Digital Twin approaches added, with brief evaluation of differences, presented in introduction (chapter 1).

- The content presented in Figure 2 is overly simplistic. As the main content of Section 2, it is recommended to introduce the main workflow of Digital Twin in the form of a block diagram.

ANSWER: Figure 2 refined, to contain block diagram presentation of the concept.

- Regarding the content of Section 3, the workflow of the centralized monitoring center can also be introduced in the form of a block diagram. Can the content of Section 2 and Section 3 be combined for introduction?

ANSWER: Section 2 and 3 combined, added a block diagram of monitoring hub as new Figure 4.

- Regarding the content of Section 4, readers may be more interested in knowing how to ensure that the simulation results are consistent with real-world testing. In other words, what is the theoretical foundation of this simulation tool?

ANSWER: As on the concept study-level at the moment, this quantitative test data is mostly pending and part of the “future work”.  We have refined the header and contents of abstract and introduction to reflect this fact.  Also in the section 3 (former section 4) has now statement “It is worth noting that at this moment, the Digital Twin entity has the measurement data of road weather instrumentation, with no possibility to manipulate data. Neither we don’t have comprehensive measurements of different instruments behavior in different weather conditions, but this all is part of pending and future work.” We also composed new “Conclusions and future work”-section, in which this specific topic is considered.

- Did the author compare the simulation results with the actual test results to verify the rationality of the method proposed in this manuscript? Because this manuscript neither proposes a relevant theoretical foundation nor verifies the results. It merely introduces the Digital Twin and its application scenarios, and thus cannot ensure the rationality of the method.

ANSWER: As on the concept study-level at the moment, this quantitative test data is mostly pending and part of the “future work”.  We have refined the header and contents of abstract and introduction to reflect this fact. We also composed new “Conclusions and future work”-section, in which this specific topic is considered.

- Is this manuscript still unfinished? There is no content after Section 7. Generally, is it necessary to include a "Conclusion" section to provide an overall evaluation of the manuscript and outline future research directions?

ANSWER: We have re-composed chapter 6 (former chapter 7) to be conclusions and future work, implementing also additional contents referring to the title.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are some recommendations that I hope will assist the author in improving their paper.

1) Abstract

- In Lines 10-11, try to rephrase “In our Digital Twin work, the goal is to … ” with, for instance, “The paper aims to …”

- Add in Line 25 a short sentence stating for whom the research is useful.

2) 1. Introduction

- In Line 32, please mention which ITU stands for and include “ITU” in round brackets.

- Figure 1 must be placed after Line 68.

- Provide additional information about the test track:

* city, region, country;

* number of the road, if applicable;

* latitude and longitude coordinates;

* distance, in km.

* other relevant information.

- The paragraph that can summarize the content of the paper (Lines 82-90):

* should be placed after Line 102.

* should include the number of the section, i.e., Section 2 presents…….. Section 3 describes ……

- Please add the research questions.

- Add the literature review in this section or in a new section.

3) 2. Digital Twin entity

- Figure 3 must be placed after Line 130.

- Please increase the resolution of Figure 3 so the text can be legible.

- In Line 110, please insert a table about the manufacturer, city, and country for each hardware component used in weather stations and the equipment from the car.

4) 4. Environmental Simulation and Sensor Response

- In Line 166, please remove the word “below”.

- In Lines 173-175, you stated that there are multiple road weather stations installed. Are these the 32 orange dots from Figure 1? If so, please correlate the information.

5) 5.1. Foggy morning at the test track

- Figure 6 must be placed after Line 196.

- What are the two big and the two small objects on the right of Figure 6 that appear on the road?

6) 5.2. Meeting several vehicles at an intersection

- Please rephrase the sentence “Simulate a situation where a vehicle detects three other vehicles approaching an intersection at the same time”. It does not have a subject.

- Figure 7 must be placed after Line 209.

7) 5.3. Slippery road and sudden braking

- Figure 8 must be placed after Line 219.

8) 5.4. GPS signal interference in a forest area

- Figure 9 must be placed after Line 227.

9) 5.5. Rapid change in weather conditions

- Rephrase “Here we simulate a situation where …”. You can use “This test simulates the situation where .. ”

- Figure 10 must be placed after Line 241.

10) 5.6. New potential application of Digital Twin

- Please provide in a table the hyperparameter tuning (values) of the algorithm, if applicable.

11) Add Discussion and Conclusions sections.

12) I recommend the following:

- Sections 2, 3, and 4 should be subsections of the “Materials and Methods” section.

- Sections 5, 6, and 7 should be renamed as “Results” and keep the current section, which will become subsections.

13) Abbreviations

- Add all the abbreviations in the paper. Some of them are missing, such as 5G NR, 6G, AERPAW, etc.

14) References

- Add more references by including the literature review section.

- Add DOI to the references [1], [4], [6], and [7] and to the future references.

Author Response

Review 4

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are some recommendations that I hope will assist the author in improving their paper.

1) Abstract

- In Lines 10-11, try to rephrase “In our Digital Twin work, the goal is to … ” with, for instance, “The paper aims to …”

ANSWER: Refined the sentence, also emphasizing that this work is still on the concept level work, not yet fully integrated solution.

- Add in Line 25 a short sentence stating for whom the research is useful.

ANSWER: Added “This research is expected to benefit the stakeholders of both automotive testing and simulation, as well road weather services development.”

2) 1. Introduction

- In Line 32, please mention which ITU stands for and include “ITU” in round brackets.

ANSWER; added explanation

- Figure 1 must be placed after Line 68.

ANSWER: Figures placed after first reference, at the bottom of the page or if not fitting, at the beginning of the following page. Understood that this kind of arrangement was expected. Figures can be positioned also right below the reference, if this kind of placement is preferred.

- Provide additional information about the test track:

* city, region, country;

* number of the road, if applicable;

* latitude and longitude coordinates;

* distance, in km.

* other relevant information.

- The paragraph that can summarize the content of the paper (Lines 82-90):

* should be placed after Line 102.

* should include the number of the section, i.e., Section 2 presents…….. Section 3 describes ……

ANSWER: Added tech details to Figure 1

- Please add the research questions.

ANSWER: Added research questions to introduction section

1) Can AI use Digital Twin to learn autonomous driving within test track in all weather conditions and

2) can functional AI use weather monitoring data of harsh weather conditions, to learn operation in even harder conditions than presented in physical measurement data?   

- Add the literature review in this section or in a new section.

ANSWER: Short literature review added

3) 2. Digital Twin entity

- Figure 3 must be placed after Line 130.

ANSWER: Figures placed after first reference, at the bottom of the page or if not fitting, at the beginning of the following page. Understood that this kind of arrangement was expected. Figures can be positioned also right below the reference, if this kind of placement is preferred.

- Please increase the resolution of Figure 3 so the text can be legible.

ANSWER: Figure 3 updated

- In Line 110, please insert a table about the manufacturer, city, and country for each hardware component used in weather stations and the equipment from the car.

ANSWER: test track contains multiple hardware components. Instead of listing the information in the text, we added hyperlink to our public database web site. Road weather station data contents and instrumentation enlisted in https://litdb.fmi.fi/rws.php

4) 4. Environmental Simulation and Sensor Response

- In Line 166, please remove the word “below”.

ANSWER: Done.

- In Lines 173-175, you stated that there are multiple road weather stations installed. Are these the 32 orange dots from Figure 1? If so, please correlate the information.

ANSWER: Clarified in text, two road weather stations, (red dots in Figure 1).

5) 5.1. Foggy morning at the test track

- Figure 6 must be placed after Line 196.

ANSWER: Figures placed after first reference, at the bottom of the page or if not fitting, at the beginning of the following page. Understood that this kind of arrangement was expected. Figures can be positioned also right below the reference, if this kind of placement is preferred.

- What are the two big and the two small objects on the right of Figure 6 that appear on the road?

ANSWER: Objects on the right are just small plants beside the road, expanded due to inaccuracy in LiDAR monitoring location adjustment. Noted on the Figure legend.

6) 5.2. Meeting several vehicles at an intersection

- Please rephrase the sentence “Simulate a situation where a vehicle detects three other vehicles approaching an intersection at the same time”. It does not have a subject.

ANSWER: Rephrased.

- Figure 7 must be placed after Line 209.

ANSWER: Figures placed after first reference, at the bottom of the page or if not fitting, at the beginning of the following page. Understood that this kind of arrangement was expected. Figures can be positioned also right below the reference, if this kind of placement is preferred.

7) 5.3. Slippery road and sudden braking

- Figure 8 must be placed after Line 219.

ANSWER: Figures placed after first reference, at the bottom of the page or if not fitting, at the beginning of the following page. Understood that this kind of arrangement was expected. Figures can be positioned also right below the reference, if this kind of placement is preferred.

8) 5.4. GPS signal interference in a forest area

- Figure 9 must be placed after Line 227.

ANSWER: Figures placed after first reference, at the bottom of the page or if not fitting, at the beginning of the following page. Understood that this kind of arrangement was expected. Figures can be positioned also right below the reference, if this kind of placement is preferred.

9) 5.5. Rapid change in weather conditions

- Rephrase “Here we simulate a situation where …”. You can use “This test simulates the situation where .. ”

ANSWER:Done

- Figure 10 must be placed after Line 241.

ANSWER: Figures placed after first reference, at the bottom of the page or if not fitting, at the beginning of the following page. Understood that this kind of arrangement was expected. Figures can be positioned also right below the reference, if this kind of placement is preferred.

10) 5.6. New potential application of Digital Twin

- Please provide in a table the hyperparameter tuning (values) of the algorithm, if applicable.

ANSWER: The chapter is re-named as “Potential Sod5G Digital Twin simulation scenarios”, stating that the presented scenarios are concept ideas, available in virtual environment but relation and effect to real sensors in each condition is not yet conducted. Therefore it is not applicable to present tuning values here, as they have not been defined yet.

11) Add Discussion and Conclusions sections.

12) I recommend the following:

- Sections 2, 3, and 4 should be subsections of the “Materials and Methods” section.

ANSWER:  Done

- Sections 5, 6, and 7 should be renamed as “Results” and keep the current section, which will become subsections.

ANSWER: Section 7 renamed as conclusions and future, based on other reviewers comments. In this perspective, 5 and 6 are kept as they are.

13) Abbreviations

- Add all the abbreviations in the paper. Some of them are missing, such as 5G NR, 6G, AERPAW, etc.

ANSWER: Done

14) References

- Add more references by including the literature review section.

ANSWER: Added two new references and contribution to literature review

- Add DOI to the references [1], [4], [6], and [7] and to the future references.

ANSWER:Done

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have attempted to implement the suggested changes. The study is suitable for publication.

Author Response

The authors have attempted to implement the suggested changes. The study is suitable for publication.

ANSWER: Thank you for your support! Some updates presented in the paper, based on other reviewer’s comments, including minor extension of the literature review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript introduces a highly realistic virtual environment that is closely related to the physical test track. It can be used for the development and testing of the autonomous driving systems. The author has addressed the 8 questions that I raised and incorporated relevant changes into the article, elaborating on the theoretical framework, implementation specifics, and potential hurdles of the proposed technique. The analytical solution findings presented by the author confirm the efficacy and viability of the proposed approach. Suggest the author to make some adjustments to the structure of the article, such as dividing the first chapter into four sections: motivation, contribution, related work, and article structure. A well structured article will make readers more interested in further reading. Meanwhile, it would be best if the author could provide a more in-depth introduction to the principles and presentation of the results. At present, the length is relatively short and there are few references. It is recommended to supplement it to make it a normal article. Therefore, I believe that with minor modifications, it can be published.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript introduces a highly realistic virtual environment that is closely related to the physical test track. It can be used for the development and testing of the autonomous driving systems. The author has addressed the 8 questions that I raised and incorporated relevant changes into the article, elaborating on the theoretical framework, implementation specifics, and potential hurdles of the proposed technique. The analytical solution findings presented by the author confirm the efficacy and viability of the proposed approach. Suggest the author to make some adjustments to the structure of the article, such as dividing the first chapter into four sections: motivation, contribution, related work, and article structure. A well structured article will make readers more interested in further reading.

ANSWER: The first chapter has been divided into four sections, motivation, related work, contribution, and article structure. We have not installed specific sub-titles, but instead introduce the subsections “In terms of related work,…” and “Focusing on our contribution,”. The first and the last sub-section are not introduced, as they are expected to be self-explanatory.

Meanwhile, it would be best if the author could provide a more in-depth introduction to the principles and presentation of the results. At present, the length is relatively short and there are few references. It is recommended to supplement it to make it a normal article. Therefore, I believe that with minor modifications, it can be published.

ANSWER: We have also slightly improved the introduction, and added one more reference to similar type of work.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors significantly improved their paper.

However, some issues still need to be addressed:

1) 1. Introduction

- The paragraph between Lines 123 and 129 should include the number of the section, i.e., Section 2 presents…….. Section 3 describes ……

- Replace in the whole paper “chapter” with “section”.

- Please write the research questions as a list.

2) Add the literature review in the Introduction section or in a new section.

3) 2. Materials and Methods

- Replace the link from Line 149 with a citation “[]” and mention it in the reference list

4) Add the Discussion section.

5) References

- Add more references by including the literature review section.

Author Response

The authors significantly improved their paper.

However, some issues still need to be addressed:

1) 1. Introduction

- The paragraph between Lines 123 and 129 should include the number of the section, i.e., Section 2 presents…….. Section 3 describes ……

ANSWER: Done

- Replace in the whole paper “chapter” with “section”.

ANSWER:Done

- Please write the research questions as a list.

ANSWER: Research questions now as a numbered list

2) Add the literature review in the Introduction section or in a new section.

ANSWER: The literature review sub-section in Introduction is now introduced “In terms of related work,…”

3) 2. Materials and Methods

- Replace the link from Line 149 with a citation “[]” and mention it in the reference list

ANSWER: Done

4) Add the Discussion section.

ANSWER: Discussion section added, mainly splitting the earlier section 5.

5) References

- Add more references by including the literature review section.

ANSWER: One additional reference article and its evaluation presented in literature review. Also the database link added to references.