Next Article in Journal
Systematic Investigations of the ZF-HD Gene Family in Tobacco Reveal Their Multiple Roles in Abiotic Stresses
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparison of Different Image Processing Methods for Segregation of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Seeds Infected by Aflatoxin-Producing Fungi
Previous Article in Journal
Novel Bacillus cereus Strain, ALT1, Enhance Growth and Strengthens the Antioxidant System of Soybean under Cadmium Stress
Previous Article in Special Issue
Adaptive Ultrasound-Based Tractor Localization for Semi-Autonomous Vineyard Operations
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Development of an Integrated IoT-Based Greenhouse Control Three-Device Robotic System

Agronomy 2021, 11(2), 405; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020405 (registering DOI)
by Vasileios Thomopoulos 1, Dionysios Bitas 2, Kyriakos-Nikos Papastavros 2, Dimitris Tsipianitis 2 and Angeliki Kavga 3,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Agronomy 2021, 11(2), 405; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020405 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 7 January 2021 / Revised: 15 February 2021 / Accepted: 17 February 2021 / Published: 23 February 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript entitled “Development of an integrated IoT-based Greenhouse Control three Device Robotic System” was improved and after acceptance remarks listed below is suitable for publication in Journal Agronomy as a short report from initial research:

  • No references number 11 in manuscript text.
  • Please correct references citation number: 42, 46, 99, 111, 112, 222. References number putted as a separate sentence, after sentence dotted. Not as standard citation.

Repeated sentences in:

- lines  95 – 99 is adequate with sentences in lines 124 – 129,

- lines 108 – 111 99 is adequate with sentences in lines 120 – 123

Author Response

  1. Reference #11 is correctly placed in manuscript text.
  2. References citation number: 42, 46, 99, 111, 112, 222 were corrected
  3. Repeated sentences are corrected, and duplicates deleted.

Reviewer 2 Report

The work deals with a very interesting topic. However, the authors present a system based on qualitative considerations. In my opinion, the work does not meet the requirements to be published in the journal and should be rejected.

In addition, I would like to make the following considerations:

There is no review of the state of the art.

Line 39. Lack of “climatic”; and CO2?

Paragraphs 108-111 and 120-123 are repeated.

Tables 1 and 3 provide very similar information and could be grouped.

Line 142. Could you explain better what are 800kv brushless motors?

Line 150. A parenthesis is missing.

Line 151. Units must be represented with proper notation.

Lines 152 and 174. The ranges of temperature and relative humidity are short.

Section 4. Operational Methodology focuses on a qualitative description of the devices.

Author Response

  1. From the thorough focused research we have conducted and the review of the literature about agriculture cablebots, we may safely presume that agriculture cablebots and agbots is a new scientific area that is now beginning to develop. Accordingly, the existing bibliography is very limited.
  2. Corrected
  3. Repeated sentences are corrected, and duplicates deleted.
  4. Table 1 compares KYTION Aeir with other technologies, drones and fixed sensors. Table 3 demonstrates the technical characteristics of the 3DS System
  5. Brushless DC electric motor are synchronous motors powered by direct current (DC) electricity via an inverter or switching power supply which produces electricity in the form of alternating current (AC) to drive each phase of the motor via a closed loop controller. The controller provides pulses of current to the motor windings that control the speed and torque of the motor. This control system replaces the commutator (brushes) used in many conventional electric motors. We avoided adding this description to the manuscript because it is too technical.
  6. Corrected
  7. Corrected
  8. We don’t agree, greenhouses are controlled environments.
  9. Data from pilot installation are given.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the effort of the authors to respond to the suggestions in the previous review. However, I believe that to prepare an acceptable work it is necessary to make substantive changes, not just answer questions of form. Thus, it is necessary to present and discuss elaborated results. The authors do not justify the results entered and do not use them to draw the conclusions.

In my opinion, it is not possible to solve these deficiencies quickly, but a deep analysis is necessary about the objective of the work, the work plan, the necessary materials and methods, the results obtained and their implications.

Author Response

We think there is a misunderstanding. The purpose of our manuscript is to present a novel, cutting-edge and not yet explored technology (an agricultural cablebot), in which current literature is poor. It is not to analyze and present data from the cablebot's sensors. It is not acceptable to ask for extensions of our research in every revision.

Back to TopTop