Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- Please show the measurement uncertainty sources of the system

- Please state clearly the novelty of your research in the conclusion

Author Response

The whole manuscript has been updated and revised.

 

Regards

Richard and co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The whole manuscript is not a standard academic paper. There are too much description of the concepts and functions. Comparatively, the deep study from the theoretical or experimental aspects are missing. Some contents are repeated redundantly, making the manuscript too long. More importantly, there are some subjective overemphasizing of the advantages of the proposed system and method, which makes the manuscript more like a technical report or even an advertisement. I would highly suggest a major revision or even a resubmission of the manuscript. The detailed comments are as follows.

 

1.       For a academic paper, the target problem to be solved should be clarified firstly. Then, the rest contents should present a functional solution and show the verification process. The key point of the manuscript is not clear enough. And the redundant description of the concepts and functions further blurred the key problem and method.

2.       In the introduction section, there is too much introduction of the project background.

3.       In the Materials and methods section, the existence of 3.1 introduction is not really necessary.

4.       In the 3.2.2 section, the MPQP test artefact is verified by CMM. However, the model and accuracy of the CMM is not provided. Moreover, the thermal expansion of the aluminum part should be discussed.

5.       The only experimental result is shown in Appendix A. And it is not discussed in details.

6.       All the decimal point in the manuscript should be “.” instead of “,”, according to the academic standard.

Author Response

The whole manuscript has been updated and revised to meet the standard of an academic paper.

Regards

Richard and co-authors

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Acronyms should be avoided in the abstract.

The text should be justified in the manuscript body text.

First-person writing should be avoided.

Line 229: Reference is missing.

Generally speaking, the text shall be improved to amend some minor typing errors.

 

Author Response

The whole manuscript has been updated and revised.

Regards

Richard and co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper describes a case study of the digital twin concepts. Because it is a case study investigation, the novel opinions are not found obviously in this manuscript. Instead, the practical work and experience are shown in detail. The contribution of this manuscript is evident. However, there are some problems that might confuse the readers. Please comment on the following questions.

1. This research is a highly integrated work, the workflow and processing are the important components of this manuscript. It is hard to understand if there are only two figures (Fig. 11 and 12) with the style of the slides and just a few explanations (Lines 412 - 417). Please give more description about the workflow, specifically the association of Fig. 10, 11, and 12.

2. In Section 3.6, the measurement accuracy is based on the coordinate system. How to guarantee the accuracy of the Z stage on 6 degrees of freedom, in Fig. 16? Is there any evaluation of the requirement of the measurement system including the coordinate system?

 

3. In Line 229, there is a missing reference number.

Author Response

The whole manuscript has been updated and revised.

Regards

Richard and co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been well revised. I think it is ready for acceptance now. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!