The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Fused Twins: A Review of Access to Digital Twins In Situ in Smart Cities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

• I strongly appreciate that author used a high amount of a recent and relevant literature sources
• The author defines a new term Fused Twin. I know more studies where the authors combine (even real-time) data visualization using AR without a need for new term establishment. I think you need to defend why there is a need for a new term
• The paper represents an introduction to Digital Twins with sentences based on good literature sources, but I am missing an overlap – discussion and analysis of those sources
• It looks like from the Abstract that the main topic of the paper is Fused Twins. The author mentions this term sometimes in subchapters – the relevant space to Fused Twins is not given
• The structure of the paper could be improved concerning my last point: you should firstly describe DT, then I suggest focusing on the visualization of the data problem (AR or other options) and then there should be an analysis of the connection of those approaches to DT
• The title is promising using of Fused Twins in Smart Cities. I am missing this in the article (differences from general, data, examples)
• It is better to define how you see the basic term Digital Twin. There was a mix-up about this term in the last years, now we perceive a difference among DT, Digital Model, and Digital Shadow
• Figure 6 – Reality is displayed only on the desktop? I think that AR and AV belong to MR. I think that you cannot stand MR among AR and AV. The only tool for MR and Fused Twins is Hololens (can using a tablet/phone provide the same impression)?
• Figure 1 is misleading: What are “the balls” and “planes”. Consider using better representative picture that can clearly explain your idea.
• The style is unbalanced – sometimes in journalistic style and sometimes complicatedly written

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is interesting for the scientific and academic community parametric procedure. This paper reviews Digital Twins to understand how Fused Twins can be constructed from Augmented Reality, Geographic Information Systems, Building/City Information Models and Digital Twins and provides an overview of current research and future directions. 

 

As a review paper, it should be clearly specified in the title. And with respect to the title, when talking about the conceptualization, a working hypothesis should appear, an element that I do not find in the text. 

 

As a review, it is a good work and should be published due to the impact that the digital twin theory has today. Although I have seen several definition structures, I have not seen in the text definitions of the digital twin in the replication of elements or objects and how horizontal attributes should work in structures that contribute to their implementation. I think the discussion should be more consistent and separate from the conclusions

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper starts from the shared assertion that smart cities have not had the right development or in any case that their development has been limited also in relation to possible and hypothetical potentials.

The paper presents a panorama of digital twins, asserting that these could be the useful tool to efficiently implement the development of smart cities and proposes the further idea of a fused twin that makes use of augmented and virtual reality and the development of the related interfaces, in which the association to digital twin can be the tool to make the services offered by smart cities open to all people with the right consideration that fused twins can make use of technologies such as BIM and GIS which at the moment are characterized by very different, albeit standardized, conceptual models that do not they speak fully among themselves.

However, I think the paper is quite interesting and worthy of being published.

The paper is also equipped with the usual bibliographic references.

what said at row 441 of page 14 ,may be, should be revised

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

the paper is well presented and covers the topic widely. I oly suggest to explain better, extend or deepen the par of Fused Twin Paradigm

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did an outstanding job while revising the article. The scientific level of the output has risen.  All the reviewer(s) points were processed and skilfully implemented in the article. 

Thank you for your reflection.

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.