Computer Architecture for Industrial Training Evaluation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research aims to enhance the work environment by implementing computer architecture for industrial training evaluation. The paper is interesting and can be further recommended to consider for possible publication.

However, the following flaws should be eliminated, as well as the comments and suggestions should be taken into account:

1.        The Abstract is declarative. It should be significantly improved in terms of highlighting the main aim, primary outcomes of the authors, their quantitative interpretation and practical implementation.

2.        A Literature Review is poor since it simply contains statements about previous research without deep analysis. So, this section should be rewritten as a critical overview of the state-of-the-art system, indicating strengths and shortcomings.

3.        Since the manuscript was submitted to “Mathematics”, the Research Methodology should contain more formalization of the main stages.

4.        Also, the Research Methodology is extremely “crowded” with different approaches, each of which is well-known separately. In this regard, the question is, what is the scientific novelty of the presented methodology? What is the most highlight(s) compared to the authors’ previous works like [3,5,6,41]?

5.        Moreover, it is unclear where the research methodology can be formally separated from the results.

6.        The Conclusions section is also poor. It needs to be rewritten entirely (please see the 1st comment).

 

Overall, the manuscript needs improvements to improve the article representation essentially.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is very interesting as it provides a comparative study on the efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction of using AR in training. 

I would recommend the following clarifications:

1. The paper relies on an experiment of two groups of participants. This is not described in the methodology section, I just noticed that in the result section. The experiment set-up is not well described, how many participants are in each group? what was the training task that both groups had to perform? could you define the control group and experiment group that you mentioned in the paper several times? 

2. I couldn't find any description of how you measure efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction, have you had questions, have you measured time? Have you measured the number of errors or rework to assess the effectiveness?

3. The main results are in Figure 36, which is not discussed in the text. By the way, it is a Table, why is it captioned as a figure? Is the caption "group statistics" representative?

4. Most of the steps in the result section are not described in the methodology section.

5. The term "Tiempo" is used in all histograms, what does it refer to?

6. Figures 1, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, and 38 are all tables, so why are they captioned as figures?

7. All tested hypotheses in the table (figure 38) shall be stated in the introduction or methodology section. They were like a surprise at the end. 

8. The discussion section discusses the new architecture only, and there is nothing about the statistical results that were shown in the result section. 

9. In the abstract, the UI shall refer to the User interface, not Interface Design, isn't it?

10. Section 4 is about 20 pages where you describe the new architecture, however, there is no evidence of how this new architecture is extracted, based on what? 

11. The paper claims the AR is used, but there was no demonstration of the AR app. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is very interesting, however, it needs comprehensive and professional proofreading. For example, in line 130, the sentence is not complete. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have provided a revised version of the manuscript. As a result, the article representation has been improved significantly according to most of the reviewer's comments and suggestions. Particularly, the Abstract has been rewritten; the Research Methodology, the Results, and the discussion have also been improved. Overall, the article can be recommended for publication. However, Editor's corrections (final typesettig according to the template, final proofreading, etc.) are needed 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well-revised and all comments are addressed in a good manner.