Efficiency Assessment of Fully Mechanized Harvesting System through the Use of Fleet Management System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a somewhat exciting topic regarding “Feasibility of fleet management system to assess efficiency and productivity of a fully mechanized wood harvesting system”. This paper should be revised as per the below comments.

 

Abstract

·         Decrease this contextualization and expand the results.

·         What is the meaning of “Fleet Management System”, and how much equipment did the study have?

·         The results should be better described in the abstract. For example, how and why this study needs to be investigated?

·         Tell the reader what you have done.

·         Explain "how" you have done it.

·         Why is this model preferred over other methods?

 

Introduction and literature review

·         what are the innovations of this paper? Please explain the motivation and the innovation of this paper scientifically.

·         The introduction section needs revisions to be written more coherently and concisely.

·         The literature review must be added as a separate section. The literature review must have a logical sequence contemplating the description of the work topic, research problem (threshold of knowledge), justification, hypotheses, and objectives. Also, the papers listed below should be added to the Literature Review section:

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17509653.2021.1991851

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14942119.2022.2083048?casa_token=ICDX74WCq2sAAAAA%3AdVC4LiPhnR78wjD6Tg6MJxjpJs6V5s9fcdOFXYJAk1t-nXDxmscKjc1Ops6dpMovR6gpgY1bfO_XkA

 

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0002222

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721021617

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JFM-10-2021-0129/full/html

 

·         You should better emphasize the importance of your work.

 

 

 

 

Materials and Methods

·         The methods applied in the current paper are not clear. Thus, more illustrations is required to be added.

·         The authors need to clarify their contribution concerning the available literature

·         The Methodology section needs more justification and discussion concerning the selected significant variables.

·         The limitations of the methodology and results need substantial improvement for the paper to impact research and practice.

·          

Results

·         How can the authors determine that the QGIS 3.10 A Coruña version and R core TM 2021 software are significant to be investigated? And then, what studies have been evaluated to make these claims?

·         The results of this study are not discussed and compared with other studies.

• How were the related mentioned models used in this paper chosen?

 

Discussion

·         The implication of this study is missing.

·         The proposed model should be validated against many cases to be validated

·         The presentation of the results is confusing and not well organized.

·     It is recommended that you add the practical and theoretical implications section and how this model would enhance decision-making by providing examples.

·         The results of your comparative study should be discussed in-depth and with more insightful comments on the behavior of your results in various case studies.

 

Conclusion

The conclusion of the work should be rephrased and expanded to enhance the readership quality and be well written in the scientifical matter.

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we thank you for your comments. Attached you can find the point-by-point response to your comments.

 

Best regard

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

For me, this study is a typical case study: a lot of data, poor statistics, therefore poor outcome, a lot of questions not answered. 

When you stated, that data are not normal deviated, why do you use SD? Why did you not look for parameter free statistics? If so, you could have answered the question whether the difference of 5 % is significant or not? This would be an important information. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we thank you for your comments. Attached you can find the point-by-point response to your comments.

 

Best regard

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Improvements of the manuscript are very well done by adding references (citations) and statistical analyses.

The introduction, materials and methods are well and logically explained, understandable and interesting.

The basic problem of the research results is the very low frequency of data sampling. Therefore, we can talk exclusively about the assessment of fuel consumption and efficiency of the researched forest machines. In the results and discussion, the results are explained on the time consumption and fuel consumption of the machines, and not on the application and feasibility of the fleet management system.

Therefore, it would be better to title the paper:

Efficiency Assessment (or Estimation) of fully mechanized wood harvesting system by use of FMS

Also, in the discussion and conclusions, an overview should be given of the possibility of a method of collecting data in a shorter time interval (higher frequency) so that efficiency can be determined based on the work cycle of an individual forest machine and even down to the level of the work element within the work cycle. For the above, software adjustment of data collection via CANBUS (based on the data flow protocol) is required.

The commercially installed data collection system from the engine computer and sensors by the manufacturer primarily serves the owners and users of the machines to monitor the efficiency of the machine, but it is insufficiently precise for scientific research. However, FMS enables easy collection of a large amount of data in real working conditions, which is very important for its application in scientific research.

Therefore, the work should definitely be published after minor changes, as it represents an important contribution to forest engineering in considering and solving problems and the possibility of collecting measurement data from machines as simply as possible.

In addition, it is still necessary to correctly number the titles and subtitles of the chapters from the Results onwards.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you a lot for your comments. We integrate the text with your comments as follows:

• we changed the title to "Efficiency assessment of fully mechanized harvesting system through the use of FMS"
• we underline in the Material and Methods that the frequency of the data downloaded was the highest. In the conclusion, we add a paragraph that emphasises the need for higher frequency in the data collection especially if you want to obtain highly detailed information in a short time period with the cycle as observational unit. 
• we try to apply your last comment: "In addition, it is still necessary to correctly number the titles and subtitles of the chapters from the Results onwards.". We check the text but the title is not numbered (Introduction, Material and Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusion) but the subtitles seem to be numbered correctly. Please let us know if we understand correctly your comment

Best Regard

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

·         The literature review must be added as a separate section. The literature review must have a logical sequence contemplating the description of the work topic, research problem (threshold of knowledge), justification, hypotheses, and objectives. Also, papers listed below should be added into the Literature Review section:

 

https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/%28ASCE%29CO.1943-7862.0002222

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17480930.2017.1336607

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032115013970

 

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/11/6651

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15568318.2019.1681565

 

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jat/2021/9987101/

 

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JFM-10-2021-0129/full/html

 

·         Explain "how" the authors have applied a fleet management system (FMS).

·         Why is the FMS preferred over other methods?

·         The limitations of the methodology and results need substantial improvement

·         It is suggested to authors that a detailed section about the dataset extracted should be added under these sections. These sections should clearly explore different features in the dataset, target variable, correlation between input parameters and target variable, sample size for the dataset, and a table presenting the head of the dataset along with some statistics (e.g., mean, median, max, min).

·         In order to enrich and support the results of the paper and make this paper more valuable and practical, the authors need to use deep and machine learning techniques in analyzing the data collected.

 

·         The results of this study should be discussed in-depth to be compared to other available studies.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

we would like to thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, some of the are not addressed. We explain the reasons in the document attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The modifications have substantially improved the article

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

we would like to thank you for your first round of revision and to accept the revision