Next Article in Journal
Joint Incentive Mechanism Design and Energy-Efficient Resource Allocation for Federated Learning in UAV-Assisted Internet of Vehicles
Previous Article in Journal
State-of-Charge Trajectory Planning for Low-Altitude Solar-Powered Convertible UAV by Driven Modes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Drones
Volume 8
Issue 3
10.3390/drones8030081
Review Report
drones-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Review
Peer-Review Record

Exploring the Potential of Remote Sensing to Facilitate Integrated Weed Management in Smallholder Farms: A Scoping Review

Drones 2024, 8(3), 81; https://doi.org/10.3390/drones8030081
by Shaeden Gokool 1,*, Maqsooda Mahomed 1, Alistair Clulow 1,2, Mbulisi Sibanda 3, Richard Kunz 1, Vivek Naiken 1,2 and Tafadzwanashe Mabhaudhi 4,5
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
David R. Green
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Drones 2024, 8(3), 81; https://doi.org/10.3390/drones8030081
Submission received: 20 December 2023 / Revised: 12 February 2024 / Accepted: 23 February 2024 / Published: 26 February 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review is very similar to another manuscript published in February 2023 by the same author. The review in question is more focused on a state-of the-art definition regarding actual applications of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technologies to guide precision agriculture (PA) practices within smallholder farms, but has a very similar structure, some paragraphs are similar to the present review. Of course, it is focused on another topic e.g. remote sensing platform for mapping and monitoring weeds within spatially heterogeneous areas such as smallholder farms.

Another critical ethical element that I point out is related to the author's background, who does not have long-term experience using drones. Generally, the ideal process is that a review work is hopefully produced by an author with sufficient experience in the topic and can correctly highlight the acquisitions of scientific research.

The author did a methodologically correct review, but only applied a search method for papers in scientific archives.

 

Best Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I found this to be a very useful paper which is timely and informative. The Review is very good, is well-written, and logically structured with good coverage of the literature.

My only comment really would be the need to mention AI in the diagram. Also to use a discrete colour legend for the location map - Figure 6 and add a North Arrow/Scale Bar etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I did not see any major grammatical issues. Some minor spelling/capitalization corrections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

I have already provided my comments and decision in the first round.

Best regards

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No additional comments

Back to TopTop