Static Task Allocation Method for Multi-Machines in Cooperative Operations Combining OGFR-GA and MLW-Prim

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors presented very interesting results but before publishing the paper some adjustments must be apllied.

The first sentence of the abstract is too long and not clear, please rewrite it.

Use the traditional format of the article when writing it, introduction, materials and methods, results and discussions and conclusions. I suggest to adapt your format to the normal one

Your data must be discussed respect to other studied carried out in other researchers. This part is completely missing. How your data are similar o different from previous studies? of 30 references reported 29 are in the introduction. Normally 1/3 in in the intro, 1/3 in materials and method and 1/3 in the discussion. Please elaborate that part

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors propose a static task allocation model for the cooperative operation of harvester groups, aiming to improve efficiency and conserve resources. Such an approach can be applied in mountainous and hilly regions. The document is well-structured and presents promising results. Nonetheless, there are some issues the reviews must check to improve their document.

 

-            Please avoid lumping citations in the introduction. Instead of indicating [1-5], [9-12] and [13-17] try to provide the reader with the main features, contributions or drawbacks of previous research work.

-            Please provide more details on the formation strategies described in lines 43 to 47. Mention their main characteristics, control strategies and limitations.

-            The authors provided some basic assumptions or hypotheses at the beginning of the mathematical Model. Some of these assumptions are more plausible than others. Discuss the implications or modifications that would have been necessary in the model if some of these assumptions had not been considered.    

-            The end of the introduction section must be more emphatic and specific regarding the main contribution of the research.

-            Spaces are needed to separate words from dots at the end of lines 12 and 17

-            Please check the aesthetics of mathematical formulations, for example, I am unsure if the double dash ( -  - ) is permitted in the MDPI format. Furthermore, some notations are too small and not uniform.

-            Avoid using the expression “formula” and instead use Equation X (where X indicates the number of the equation)

-            How are the weight factors of equation (3) determined?  Please explain

-             Was the calculation method for dij in equation (6) developed by the authors? If not, it needs a reference.

- Please check the presentation of references, some of them are missing the 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposes a static task allocation model for cooperative operations. Particularly, they propose an extension of the single-chromosome to multi-machine operations.

  In general, the article is well written, however, an in-depth grammar review is still necessary, specially the use of dots, commas, semicolons, as well as the use of capital letters.   My main observation is that, following an already obsolete style of scientific reporting, the conclusions of the article only mention the improvements that the proposed algorithm generates, but do not mention the disadvantages or situations of non-application that it may have. Failure to do so implies ignoring the "no-free launch" theorem, which is scientifically irresponsible.   Also, the last paragraph recognizes a discrepancy between the problem model and the real problem. Relegating the consequences of this difference to a later study is not realistic in terms of substantiating the proposed algorithm.   In order to argue in favor of the acceptance of this paper, the last two observations must be adequateley answered.         Comments on the Quality of English Language   An in-depth grammar review is still necessary, specially the use of dots, commas, semicolons, as well as the use of capital letters.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author properly addressed the question arised during the review process so the paper is now ready to be published

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made a good job. I have no further comments. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After carefully reviewing the authors’ response to my comments and the modifications they made to the text of the article, it is my opinion that they complied with everything that was asked of them and therefore the article is in a position to be published.