Recent Developments and Future Prospects in the Integration of Machine Learning in Mechanised Systems for Autonomous Spraying: A Brief Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author briefly reviews the latest developments and reviews of machine learning in the field of spraying, and proposes future recommendations. Helps scholars quickly understand the current research status in this field.

1. All the pictures are quite blurry, can you provide a higher definition picture?

2. As a review article, you only have 60 references. Can you add more references?

3. What is the classification of "(1), (2), etc." marked by the author in the abstract? What is its function?

4. Your topic is the application of machine learning in the field of agricultural plant protection, but your keywords are not reflected. Please revise them.

5. Your manuscript type is a review, and it mentions future prospects in the title. However, in your manuscript, there is only a summary section at the end, and the future prospects are only mentioned in the summary, which is not yet clear. In my understanding, the future prospects section should be listed as a separate chapter with specific explanations.

Author Response

The author briefly reviews the latest developments and reviews of machine learning in the field of spraying, and proposes future recommendations. Helps scholars quickly understand the current research status in this field.

Thank you for your time and dedication in this review report.

1. All the pictures are quite blurry, can you provide a higher definition picture?

We have improved the quality of the pictures, probably depending on the upload to the site.

2. As a review article, you only have 60 references. Can you add more references?

Dear reviewer, this article explores the dynamics related to machine learning and AI systems in the field of autonomous spraying. This topic is extremely innovative, and the bibliometric survey undertaken showed that the most reliable contributions in terms of methodologies and technological progress are those of the last 10 years. We thoroughly explored the Scopus and Web of Sciences databases, and unfortunately there are no additional references that would increase the robustness of this study. In fact, we opted for a title that states Brief Review, precisely because of this dynamic.

3. What is the classification of "(1), (2), etc." marked by the author in the abstract? What is its function?

Dear reviewer, this numbering stems from the template provided by the journal, which requires you to identify the key words of the manuscript within the abstract. You can view the template in its original format directly from the instruction for author page of the journal Agriengineering or at the following link https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/agriengineering-template.dot

However, if the journal editor sees fit to modify this classification, we are fully available to do so.

 

4. Your topic is the application of machine learning in the field of agricultural plant protection, but your keywords are not reflected. Please revise them.

Thank you for your valuable observation. We agree that the original keywords did not adequately reflect the core focus of the manuscript. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the list of keywords and included “agricultural plant protection” to better align with the topic and improve the discoverability of the article. We appreciate your attention to this important detail.

5. Your manuscript type is a review, and it mentions future prospects in the title. However, in your manuscript, there is only a summary section at the end, and the future prospects are only mentioned in the summary, which is not yet clear. In my understanding, the future prospects section should be listed as a separate chapter with specific explanations.

Dear Reviewer, we agree, we have added a specific paragraph on future prospects.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

With this article, the authors address an extremely current and relevant topic in the field of innovation in precision agriculture. The authors provide an interesting state-of-the-art analysis of the integration of Machine Learning in autonomous spraying systems. The work is coherently and solidly structured, providing a comprehensive review of the scientific literature in relation to the topic addressed. An extremely positive factor is having analysed with particular attention the literature of the last decade, which certainly represents the maximum in terms of reliability and quality, since this is an innovative topic. I leave some points that I consider interesting and engaging to improve this excellent manuscript.   1. Further detail the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of studies in the review;   2. Expand the section on future perspectives and the main obstacles to the large-scale deployment of these systems;   3. discuss more about the practical implications and applications of the study;   4. make the advantages of ML over standard and classical methods more explicit in the introduction;   5. provide ethical and environmental reflections and considerations in the conclusions.

Author Response

With this article, the authors address an extremely current and relevant topic in the field of innovation in precision agriculture. The authors provide an interesting state-of-the-art analysis of the integration of Machine Learning in autonomous spraying systems. The work is coherently and solidly structured, providing a comprehensive review of the scientific literature in relation to the topic addressed. An extremely positive factor is having analysed with particular attention the literature of the last decade, which certainly represents the maximum in terms of reliability and quality, since this is an innovative topic. I leave some points that I consider interesting and engaging to improve this excellent manuscript.   
Thank you for your time and dedication in this review report.

1. Further detail the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of studies in the review;   
Dear reviewer, we agree, we have detailed the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of studies in the review.

2. Expand the section on future perspectives and the main obstacles to the large-scale deployment of these systems;   
Dear Reviewer, we agree, we have added a specific paragraph on future prospects.

3. discuss more about the practical implications and applications of the study;   
Dear reviewer, we have expanded the discussion on the practical implications of the study.

4. make the advantages of ML over standard and classical methods more explicit in the introduction;   
Dear reviewer, we discussed the advantages of ML over standard methods in more detail in the introduction

5. provide ethical and environmental reflections and considerations in the conclusions.
Dear reviewer, we have included ethical and environmental considerations in our conclusions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is a systematic review of the progress and future perspectives in the integration of machine learning in mechanised systems for autonomous spraying. The topic is very relevant and allows to focus on how the research has evolved over the period considered.

The paper is very well done and perfectly in line with the proposed idea. However, the future prospects section should be highlighted as it is not well explained in the text.

Some minor suggestions
Do not use acronyms in the abstract.
Keywords should not recall terms used in the title.
Improve the quality of figure 1.

Author Response

The paper is a systematic review of the progress and future perspectives in the integration of machine learning in mechanised systems for autonomous spraying. The topic is very relevant and allows to focus on how the research has evolved over the period considered.
Thank you for your time and dedication in this review report.

The paper is very well done and perfectly in line with the proposed idea. However, the future prospects section should be highlighted as it is not well explained in the text.
Dear Reviewer, we agree, we have added a specific paragraph on future prospects.
Some minor suggestions
Do not use acronyms in the abstract.
Dear reviewer, this numbering stems from the template provided by the journal, which requires you to identify the key words of the manuscript within the abstract. You can view the template in its original format directly from the instruction for author page of the journal Agriengineering or at the following link https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/agriengineering-template.dot 
However, if the journal editor sees fit to modify this classification, we are fully available to do so.

Keywords should not recall terms used in the title.
Dear Reviewer We have revised the keywords.

Improve the quality of figure 1.
We have improved the quality of the pictures, probably depending on the upload to the site.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper submitted for review, entitled 'Recent Developments and Future Prospects in the Integration of Machine Learning in Mechanized Systems for Autonomous Spraying: A Brief Review,' referes to important topic related to optimizing autonomous spraying in agriculture. These activities aim to increase spraying accuracy and minimize negative environmental impacts. Additionally, they directly contribute to reducing farmers' operating costs.

However, the presented article has significant shortcomings that require major revision before it can be considered for publication. The division of the article into sections such as 'Introduction' and 'Materials and Methods' is not the best for a review paper. In its current form, the article is highly chaotic, with some comments repeated across different sections. The presented content doesn't form a coherent, logical whole. The formatting of tables and figures is often unclear (e.g., Figure 1, Figure 3).

In line 119, the authors state that the review focuses on automated durum wheat spraying systems. However, the rest of the article does not address this topic. Additionally, the bibliography numbering should be checked and corrected. For example, in line 191, the authors refer to source [30], while Figure 2, which is related to this description, is labeled as source [29]. Please clarify. Furthermore, keyword numbering appears in the abstract, which is incorrect and should be removed.

In my opinion, the article requires significant improvements before it can be considered for publication.

Author Response

The paper submitted for review, entitled 'Recent Developments and Future Prospects in the Integration of Machine Learning in Mechanized Systems for Autonomous Spraying: A Brief Review,' referes to important topic related to optimizing autonomous spraying in agriculture. These activities aim to increase spraying accuracy and minimize negative environmental impacts. Additionally, they directly contribute to reducing farmers' operating costs. However, the presented article has significant shortcomings that require major revision before it can be considered for publication.
Thank you for your time and dedication in this review report.
The division of the article into sections such as 'Introduction' and 'Materials and Methods' is not the best for a review paper. 
Dear reviewer, the section division follows the format suggested by the journal and ensures a clear organization of the content, as demonstrated by many review papers published in top-ranked journals. Furthermore, none of the other reviewers reported difficulties in reading or understanding the structure, which confirms its consistency. To maintain alignment with the journal’s guidelines and ensure clarity for all readers, we have decided to retain the current structure.

In its current form, the article is highly chaotic, with some comments repeated across different sections. The presented content doesn't form a coherent, logical whole. The formatting of tables and figures is often unclear (e.g., Figure 1, Figure 3).
Dear reviewer, we have improved the quality of all figures, probably depending on the upload to the site. However, we regret that you find the article chaotic, also in consideration that all other reviewers praised us for its clear structure. The organisation of the manuscript was appreciated by the other reviewers and follows an established logic in the literature in the field. However, we have further refined the structure to improve readability, although its criticism is not reflected in the other reviews.

In line 119, the authors state that the review focuses on automated durum wheat spraying systems. However, the rest of the article does not address this topic. 
Dear reviewer, we agree, this is a typo, resulting from a citation in one of the studies analysed. We have corrected the error, although it has no impact on the scientific content of the manuscript.

Additionally, the bibliography numbering should be checked and corrected. For example, in line 191, the authors refer to source [30], while Figure 2, which is related to this description, is labeled as source [29]. Please clarify. 
Dear reviewer, We have checked and corrected the numbering to ensure maximum accuracy. Thank you for reporting this.

Furthermore, keyword numbering appears in the abstract, which is incorrect and should be removed.
Dear reviewer, this numbering is required by the journal’s official template. If the editorial team decides to modify it, we are fully willing to comply.
For reference, you can view the template in its original format directly from the Instructions for Authors page of Agriengineering or at the following link:
https://www.mdpi.com/files/word-templates/agriengineering-template.dot.

In my opinion, the article requires significant improvements before it can be considered for publication.
Dear reviewer, we hope that with the changes made, your judgement will change. We have implemented significant improvements based on all the feedback received. We hope that the changes made will clarify the points raised, while noting that your comments differ from the other reviewers' assessments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Accept in present form

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank you for your positive evaluation and thoughtful comments regarding our manuscript. We are truly grateful for your support and for recognizing the value of our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript can be accepted in its present form.

Author Response

We would like to sincerely thank you for your positive evaluation and thoughtful comments regarding our manuscript. We are truly grateful for your support and for recognizing the value of our work.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' replies clearly shows that they did not understand their mistakes. The journal's template does not indicate that keywords should be numbered in the abstract, and no such practice could be found elsewhere. Moreover, it is explicitly stated that the structure of sections for publications other than articles should be adapted ('other article types have a more flexible structure'). I maintain my previous opinion that the article  is not suitable for publication. I would like to emphasize that the only argument the authors repeatedly make is that other reviewers did not raise similar concerns, which is highly inappropriate.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your remarks. We have removed the keyword numbering and revised the structure to better conform to the journal’s guidelines.

We regret if our previous responses seemed inadequate, but they were intended to clarify—not to dismiss—your points. While other reviewers did not raise similar concerns, we acknowledge the validity of your critique.