Exploring the Use of Data in a Digital Twin for the Marine and Coastal Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors reviewed a large body of literature summarising the types, sources, characteristics and management associated with the data in a DTO, but the innovation is not very impressive. 

Specific comments: 

1. Lines 108-113: The description of the organisation of the content of the paper needs to be improved.

2. Line 115: The expression ‘a physical object’ in the sentence is not a good expression.

3. Lines 120,142: Missing valid cross references.

4. Line 147: The expression ‘seven days’ is too absolute.

5. Lines 178-179: The sentence expression is too absolute.

6. Lines 189-190: The sentence ‘To overcome......’ is not in the right place.

7. Line 218: What’s the meaning of ‘Provide Ocean Land and Colour (OLCI)’?

8. Table 2: It would be better to change the heading of column 3 to ‘Satellite/Sensor’.

9. Line 314: ‘geographic information shapefiles’ is not a good phrase.

10. Line 322: 2.4-->2.5

11. Lines 176-321: It is recommended that the presentation of different types of data be as consistent as possible.

12. Lines 388-390: The expression is not accurate.

13. Line 511: Wrong section title.

14. Line 549: Wrong location.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in the re-submitted files and please see attachment.

 
Comment 1: The authors reviewed a large body of literature summarising the types, sources, characteristics and management associated with the data in a DTO, but the innovation is not very impressive. 
 Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this statement, and we have incorporated more information on how the DTO will be implemented in a South African and Western Indian Ocean region.
Comment 2:  Lines 108-113: The description of the organisation of the content of the paper needs to be improved. 
Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, improved the description of the organization of the content of the paper which can be found in lines 132 to 140 on page 4 in Section 1. 
Comment 3: Lines 120,142: Missing valid cross references. 
Response 3: Agree. We have updated the cross references and are found in lines 148 on page 4, and 169 on page 5 in Section 2.   
Comments 4: Line 147: The expression ‘seven days’ is too absolute 
Response 4: Agree. We have included the range of near real time from one hour and seven days in line 173 on page 5 in Section 2.
Comments 5: Lines 178-179: The sentence expression is too absolute. 
Response 5: Agree. This has been revised accordingly where instrumentation is described for both surface and sub-surface/seafloor in lines 208 to 211 on page 6 in Section 2.1.  
Comments 6: Lines 189-190: The sentence ‘To overcome......’ is not in the right place. 
Response 6: Agree. We have, accordingly, moved this sentence to the end of the section in line 222 to 223 on page 6.  
Comments 7: Line 218: What’s the meaning of ‘Provide Ocean Land and Colour (OLCI)’? 
Response 7: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised this sentence to include the phrase satellite observations of ocean colour using Sentinel-3 OLCI sensor. The revised version can be found on page 7 in line 252.  
Comments 8: Table 2: It would be better to change the heading of column 3 to ‘Satellite/Sensor’.  
Response 8: Agree. We have, accordingly, removed tables 1 to 4 in the previous manuscript and modified information and summarised the table to include both in-situ and satellite observations and can be found Table 1 on page 9 in Section 2.5 line 365.  
Comments 9: Line 314: ‘geographic information shapefiles’ is not a good phrase. 
Response 9: Agree. We have removed the phrase geographic information shapefiles in line 339 on page 9.  
Comments 10: Line 322: 2.4-->2.5 
Response 10: Agree. We have, accordingly, changed sub-heading to 2.5 in line 346 on page 9.  
Comments 11: Lines 176-321: It is recommended that the presentation of different types of data be as consistent as possible. 
Response 11: Agree. We have, accordingly, condensed the information from all the tables into one table (which can be found in Table 1). The Table includes common ocean variables that can be collected by both remote sensing, ancillary and in-situ data sources on page 9.   
Comments 12: Lines 388-390: The expression is not accurate. 
Response 12: Agree. We have rephrased the expression which can be found on page 9 in lines 421 to 425. 
Comments 13: Line 511: Wrong section title.  
Response 13. Agree. We have, accordingly, changed the Section title to Principle 7: Data policies and governance which can be found in line 556.  
Comments 14: Line 549 Wrong location.  
Response 14: Agree. We have updated the figure caption to reflect the correct location and can be found on page 15 in line 595. 
 
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language 
Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any  
Response 1:  Thank you for the acknowledgement of comments on the quality of the English language. 
5. Additional clarifications 
No additional clarifications. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I have reviewed the entitled manuscript "Exploring the use of data in a Digital Twin for the marine and 2 coastal environment". Please find below comments and suggestions in relation to your article.

- I consider that this manuscipt should include additional information and justification about the proposed regions (Southern African and Western Indian Ocean). Why the authors choose these regions? What is the spatial extension for both regions? please include a map and indicate the polygons.

- 120 and 142 lines have broken links.

-Table 2: please verify the spatial resolution of ocean color data, it looks wrong (10 km were written, I think that those sensors provide better resolution). Same comment for temporal resolution.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in the re-submitted files. 

 

Comments 1: I consider that this manuscript should include additional information and justification about the proposed regions (Southern African and Western Indian Ocean). Why the authors choose these regions? What is the spatial extension for both regions? please include a map and indicate the polygons.                     
Response 1: Agree. We have included a map and more information about the proposed regions of the Southern African and Western Indian Ocean. This can be found on page 3 from lines 113 to 126 in Section 1. 
 
Comments 2: 120 and 142 lines have broken links.                         
Response 2: Agree. We have checked and updated the broken links. The updated version can be found in lines 148 on page 4 and 170 on page 5. 
 
Comments 3: Table 2: please verify the spatial resolution of ocean color data, it looks wrong (10 km were written, I think that those sensors provide better resolution). Same comment for temporal resolution.     
Response 3: Agree. The Tables 1 to 4 from the previous version have been combined to provide a more consistent review of the various data sources. This can be seen in the new Table 1 in Section 2.5 Summary of various data sources on page 9. 
 
 
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language 
Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any  
Response:  Thank you for the acknowledgement on the quality of the English language. 

 
5. Additional clarifications 
No additional clarifications. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper explores the application of digital twin technology in the monitoring of marine and coastal environments and presents a detailed data management plan, which is crucial for ensuring the effective implementation of digital twin technology. After reading the manuscript, the following main issues are identified:

1. The paper mentions the importance of data quality, yet lacks specific implementation details regarding data quality assurance, which is a key factor for the successful implementation of digital twin technology.
2. Although the paper refers to the technical challenges of data fusion, it fails to provide specific solutions or technical approaches.
3. Could you provide specific cases to demonstrate the application effectiveness of digital twin technology in marine monitoring?
4. The information in the lists is not accurate enough. It is recommended that the author carefully organize and proofread the relevant information to ensure the professionalism and accuracy of the paper. For example, in Table 1, how can “Mercury or digital thermometer” be used to measure sea temperature? And there are issues with the units in “Accuracy”, etc.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are also some minor errors. It is suggested that the author carefully revise the manuscript. For instance, in line 144, “Error! Reference source not found.”

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections in the re-submitted files. 
  Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors  Comments 1: The paper explores the application of digital twin technology in the monitoring of marine and coastal environments and presents a detailed data management plan, which is crucial for ensuring the effective implementation of digital twin technology. After reading the manuscript, the following main issues are identified:       Comments 1: 1. The paper mentions the importance of data quality, yet lacks specific implementation details regarding data quality assurance, which is a key factor for the successful implementation of digital twin technology.   Response 1:  Agree. We have expanded on the implementation of data quality assurance in Section 4.5 in line 530. We highlight that data quality control is an ongoing challenge as we rely on the data custodian to implement data quality control measures and communicate their process with the users of the DTO.    Comments 2: Although the paper refers to the technical challenges of data fusion, it fails to provide specific solutions or technical approaches.   Response 2: Agree. There are several technical approaches that can be used for data fusion and are dependent on the data. Some of these approaches have been highlighted in Section 3.1.3 in lines 433 to 437 on page 11.      Comments 3: Line 147: 3. Could you provide specific cases to demonstrate the application effectiveness of digital twin technology in marine monitoring?   Response 3: Thank you for your comment. We have included come specific cases to demonstrate the effectiveness of the digital twin in Section 1, lines 66 to 73 on page 2.    Comments 4: The information in the lists is not accurate enough. It is recommended that the author carefully organize and proofread the relevant information to ensure the professionalism and accuracy of the paper. For example, in Table 1, how can “Mercury or digital thermometer” be used to measure sea temperature? And there are issues with the units in “Accuracy”, etc.   Response 4: Agree. The Tables 1 to 4 from the previous version have been combined to provide a more consistent review of the various data sources. This can be seen in the new Table 1 in Section 2.5 Summary of various data sources on page 9.    4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language  Point 1: The English could be improved to more clearly express  Response 1:   Thank you for the comment on the quality of the English language of the paper. We have reviewed the paper and tried to improve any spelling or grammatical errors in the text.  5. Additional clarifications  No additional clarifications. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is not really a research paper, but a review of methods for the generation of a DTO. Sorry but I have no comments, I was expecting something more specific about the building of the DTO for the SA and WIO regions. It is too general.

Author Response

Comments 1: This is not really a research paper, but a review of methods for the generation of a DTO. Sorry but I have no comments, I was expecting something more specific about the building of the DTO for the SA and WIO regions. It is too general.                 
 
Response 1: Thank you for your review. We agree that the paper is too general and have tried to update the paper by adding more information about the South African and Western Indian Ocean regions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the revised manuscript has improved considerably, but there are still several issues that need to be addressed:

1. Line 81: Figure 1 --> (Figure 1)
2. Line 132: 'as follows' -->'as follows:'
3. Line 174: It's better to change 'seven days' to 'a few days'.
4. Lines 427-428: For cloud services, data storage can be centralised or distributed.
5. Line 495: 'Figure 6' is missing.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. 

Comments 1: Line 81: Figure 1 --> (Figure 1)
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out, we have added parenthesis to the label Figure 1 (Line 81, page 2).

Comments 2: Line 132: 'as follows' -->'as follows:'
Response 2: We have modified and added the necessary punctuation (Line 122 page 4).

Comments 3: Line 174: It's better to change 'seven days' to 'a few days'
Response 3: Agree, we have made the changes accordingly which can be found in 164 on page 5. 

Comments 4: Lines 427-428: For cloud services, data storage can be centralised or distributed
Response 4: Agree. We have, accordingly, added that the data storage can be in a centralized or distributed location and the changes are found in line 414 on page 11. 

Comments 5: 'Figure 6' is missing.
Response 5: We have added Figure 6 on line 587, page 15. 

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language
No comments on the quality of English Language
5. Additional clarifications
No additional clarifications

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to commend the authors for their thoughtful revisions of the manuscript. The modifications have significantly improved the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the work. Minor grammatical issues noted in the previous version have been resolved.

In my assessment, the manuscript now meets the journal's standards for novelty, scientific validity, and presentation. I recommend acceptance of this work for publication in its current form.

Author Response

Comments 1: I would like to commend the authors for their thoughtful revisions of the manuscript. The modifications have significantly improved the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of the work. Minor grammatical issues noted in the previous version have been resolved. In my assessment, the manuscript now meets the journal's standards for novelty, scientific validity, and presentation. I recommend acceptance of this work for publication in its current form.
Response 1: We would like to thank you for your time and effort in reviewing the revisions, and we appreciate all of the helpful input you provided in the process. We welcome the recommendation of the acceptance of our research article for publication. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf