Identification of Technical Requirements for the Initial Design of an Autonomous Fruit-Harvesting Robot

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Identification of technical requirements for the initial design of an autonomous fruit-harvesting robot

Reviewer’s Comments on:

The abstract offers a broad summary, it would be advantageous to draw attention to particular study findings or conclusions. Think about including a few phrases summarizing the main findings or contributions of your research.

The literature review may be narrowed down. Write a summary of the most pertinent studies and how they will directly affect the way your autonomous fruit-harvesting robot is designed.

 The methodology is well-organized, there are some missing specifics, especially when it comes to the sources of data that were used to create the machine learning models.

The technical specifications table is a useful addition, it is missing certain crucial information, such the type of battery, among other things.

The document uses technical jargon consistently. Select one phrase for consistency; for instance, "fruit identification" and "fruit recognition" are used interchangeably.

Table 1 for fruit classification, are a useful tool, but other graphic aids, such as flowcharts or diagrams, might be used to further explain the robot's construction and functioning.

please increase the resolution this figure 1 and 3.

Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are mentioned in the section on machine learning methods, but it is unclear why these models were selected over others.

There is room for more discussion on environmental adaptability. Think about include a section explaining how the robot's design takes various soil types, weather patterns, and field barriers into account.

Citations & References: Certain citations (such "[?]") seem to be missing information or inconsistent.

"Prototyping and field testing" are mentioned, but no information is given regarding the methods, measurements, or assessments of these tests.

What extent does the robot's design adapt to various fruit varieties or field conditions? This would aid in showcasing the suggested robot's adaptability and possible market size.

Future research is mentioned in passing in the conclusion, but a separate section would enable a clearer overview of the next stages and research priorities. This could involve enhancing the precision of machine learning, cutting expenses, or extending the robot's reach to encompass diverse crop varieties.

OPINION

The paper would be strengthened by incorporating a discussion on the limitations of the proposed system and exploring potential future directions. Additionally, conducting a thorough language editing to improve manuscript clarity and coherence is recommended.

Thank you for choosing me as a reviewer.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Commnets 1: [The abstract offers a broad summary, it would be advantageous to draw attention to particular study findings or conclusions. Think about including a few phrases summarizing the main findings or contributions of your research].
Response 1: The abstract is changed according to the observation made.

Commnets 2: [The literature review may be narrowed down. Write a summary of the most pertinent studies and how they will directly affect the way your autonomous fruit-harvesting robot is designed].
Response 2: The manuscript deals with the requirements in a more generalized way, for that reason it does not have a specific focus, if I narrow down the bibliography I would lose the possibility for the reader to go deeper into the topic adequately.

Commnets 3: [The methodology is well-organized, there are some missing specifics, especially when it comes to the sources of data that were used to create the machine learning models].
Response 3: The methodology does not focus on machine learning, as I explained before it is a general review, and the references also serve that purpose. 

Commnets 4: [The technical specifications table is a useful addition, it is missing certain crucial information, such the type of battery, among other things].
Response 4: According to the observation, the information in the table is increased.

Commnets 5: [The document uses technical jargon consistently. Select one phrase for consistency; for instance, “fruit identification” and “fruit recognition” are used interchangeably].
Response 5: The writing was revised to ensure uniformity in the use of “fruit-harvesting”.

Commnets 6: [Table 1 for fruit classification, are a useful tool, but other graphic aids, such as flowcharts or diagrams, might be used to further explain the robot's construction and functioning].
Response 6: A flowchart of the operation was generated according to the observation.

Commnets 7: [please increase the resolution this figure 1 and 3.]
Response 7: Increase the resolution of the 2 figures.

Commnets 8: [Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are mentioned in the section on machine learning methods, but it is unclear why these models were selected over others].
Response 8: A paragraph was added to explain better, it does not expand much as there will always be more options.

Commnets 9: [There is room for more discussion on environmental adaptability. Think about include a section explaining how the robot's design takes various soil types, weather patterns, and field barriers into account].
Response 9: A section was added to complete this observation in which soil type is analyzed.

Commnets 10: [Citations & References: Certain citations (such “[?]”) seem to be missing information or inconsistent].
Response 10: Correction of all [?] marks has been made

Commnets 11: [“Prototyping and field testing” are mentioned, but no information is given regarding the methods, measurements, or assessments of these tests].
Response 11: The tests correspond to already used built robots, I do not have the complete information, and that would comprise a separate research or paper.

Commnets 12: [What extent does the robot's design adapt to various fruit varieties or field conditions? This would aid in showcasing the suggested robot's adaptability and possible market size].
Response 12: The manuscript has a general revision, to adapt to most fruits, a design as such has not been proposed, it is planned to do so in the future when the robot is built, which will be adaptable to multiple fruits, in this paper it is not planned to provide this information yet.

Commnets 13: [Future research is mentioned in passing in the conclusion, but a separate section would enable a clearer overview of the next stages and research priorities. This could involve enhancing the precision of machine learning, cutting expenses, or extending the robot's reach to encompass diverse crop varieties].
Response 13: Any future observations are planned to be explained in much more detail once the project has been built, again it is not planned to provide this information at this time.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript focuses on identifying the needs and preliminary requirements for designing an autonomous robot for fruit harvesting. The consistent parts of harvest robot were introduced, the operational demands, environmental conditions, and technical specifications were analyzed and the future of harvest robot was discussed.

The article was meaningful for research and application of the fruit harvest robot. However, it’s more like a review work. With more discussion and analysis of the research and applications, the manuscript would be greater.

 

1 It’s better to consider “fruit-harvesting” as a keywords.

2 The introduction could be more logical and powerful. The title was “an autonomous fruit-harvesting robot”. The introduction is better to focus more on fruit.

3 The manuscript was more like a review work. The structure should be reform to make it more logical.

4 The manuscript gave the general information of the comment hardware parts of vision system and the algorithms. Without deep analysis of the current research and applications, it more like a popularization of science work.

5 The manuscript covered too much topics without enough reference and analysis. It’s better to narrow the topics and discuss it well.

6 The conclusion could be more focus on the title and keywords.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is not any  comments for English.

Author Response

Comments 1 [It's better to consider “fruit-harvesting” as a keywords.]
Response 1: According to the suggestion the keyword was changed.

Comments2: [The introduction could be more logical and powerful. The title was “an autonomous fruit-harvesting robot”. The introduction is better to focus more on fruit].
Response 2: According to the observation, the introduction was fixed, with a better focus on the fruit-harvesting robot but without changing much its overall structure.

Comments 3: [The manuscript was more like a review work. The structure should be reform to make it more logical].
Response 3: The manuscript is indeed a review manuscript, without better feedback I would not know how to change the structure.

Comments 4: [The manuscript gave the general information of the comment hardware parts of vision system and the algorithms. Without deep analysis of the current research and applications, it more like a popularization of science work].
Comments 5: [The manuscript covered too much topics without enough reference and analysis. It's better to narrow the topics and discuss it well]].
Response 4, 5: The manuscript was made to give an overview, that is why several concepts are applied, think of it as a starting guide for a future project, the future reader would have an overview of what to do, but it would not be deepened.
The number of references, although extensive, is necessary for the future reader to be able to go deeper into the subject.

Comments 6 [The conclusion could be more focus on the title and keywords].
Response 6: Based on the recommendation to reduce the conclusions to be more focused on the topic.