An Algorithm for Obtaining 3D Egg Models from Visual Images

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find the following points;

• The abstract could be more informative by providing results. I prefer to see some results in the abstract.
• The introduction needs to be more emphasized on the research work with a detailed explanation of the whole process considering past, present and future scope. Please discuss more about the application of image processing in the other branches of engineering.
• How the present study gives more accurate results than previous studies about the image processing? It needs to be strengthened in terms of recent research in this area with possible research gaps. It is strongly recommended to add a recent literature.
• Please discuss about the limitation of the database of the selected case study, its impact on the training of the prediction models and the method for the validation of the prediction tool.
• Please pay attention to the formatting guidelines as per the journal requirement.
• There is no presentation of figures against the results, please include some graphs for a better understanding of the results.
• Please describe the importance and novelty of the selected problem, data details and the geometric. Please provide details about the selected problem and the geometric. Please include the validation process on the unique problem.
• The author use different abbreviations at different places, which confused the reader, Please provide the list of the abbreviation, please use at the start.
• Please provide more discussion for the section 2 Material and Method, please include more description of the proposed method by adding the latest references.
• No discussion about the validation of the proposed models other than the database approach? Please include some case studies for the validation of proposed model by discussing new images or the effect of the different parameters.
• Research gaps should be highlighted more clearly and future applications of this study should be added.
• In the conclusion section, the limitations of this study suggested improvements of this work, and future directions should be added

The author needs to address the abovementioned points for the betterment of the manuscript.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the members of the editorial and reviewer boards for their objectivity and accuracy in evaluating the materials presented in the article, for the positive evaluation of the results of the work, and especially for the advice and recommendations for our research. We consider the remarks made regarding technical errors, insufficiently substantiated methods and tools and partial omissions to be justified.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript  is very interesting and important to analyze  egg  size and form.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the members of the editorial and reviewer boards for their objectivity and accuracy in evaluating the materials presented in the article, for the positive evaluation of the results of the work, and especially for the advice and recommendations for our research. We consider the remarks made regarding technical errors, insufficiently substantiated methods and tools and partial omissions to be justified.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is certainly interesting but some parts should be improved:
- An overview on the state of the art (related work section) is completely absent;
- Table / algorithm 1 should be referenced and contextualized in the text. Furthermore, it is not to be represented as a table;
- There are no details about the implementation (software used, etc);
- The proposed algorithm should be tested using datasets recognized by the scientific community and compared with the state of the art;
- In the context presented, the following paper should be cited which proposes an approach to object recognition

Manzo, Mario, and Simone Pellino. "FastGCN+ ARSRGemb: a novel framework for object recognition." Journal of Electronic Imaging 30, no. 3 (2021): 033011.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the members of the editorial and reviewer boards for their objectivity and accuracy in evaluating the materials presented in the article, for the positive evaluation of the results of the work, and especially for the advice and recommendations for our research. We consider the remarks made regarding technical errors, insufficiently substantiated methods and tools and partial omissions to be justified.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Proposal for minor changes:

- Replace the point "." in equations (1) to (4) by the multiplication sign "·". In general, the style of the equations could be improved. For example, the font size used should be the same as the main text. The style of the formulas inserted in the text could also be improved using a suitable formula editor..

- The drawing in Fig. 2 is confusing, due to the combination of colours and the dimensions. I think it could be improved to better identify all the parameters indicated. Perhaps including vertical and horizontal sections could help. 

- In Fig. 3 the size of the text is disproportionate (too large) to the images.

- Line 85: The significance level is not mentioned again in the rest of the article.

- Lines 110-111: The indicated reference (Mytiai et al., 2019), is not in the proper format.

- The style of the pseudocode in Table 1 could be improved, using the usual Matlab font and colour scheme, for example. In addition, there are undefined variables, such as X, X1, D1 and d1.

Proposal for major changes:

The most important shortcoming, from my point of view, is that the actual images of the egg types for which the experiments are carried out are missing, as well as the procedure used to measure from these images the parameters mentioned in the article. I believe this is necessary in order to be able to compare the real parameters with those obtained from the proposed model.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to thank the members of the editorial and reviewer boards for their objectivity and accuracy in evaluating the materials presented in the article, for the positive evaluation of the results of the work, and especially for the advice and recommendations for our research. We consider the remarks made regarding technical errors, insufficiently substantiated methods and tools and partial omissions to be justified.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors responded well against the suggested comments, please accept the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

As far as I'm concerned, there are no further changes to be made