Comparative Analysis of Different UAV Swarm Control Methods on Unmanned Farms
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript provides a thorough review of drone swarm control in agricultural applications. It provides an excellent overview of the current state of the art, and points to areas of development that could take the field further. This review is likely to be a useful starting point for researchers with an interest in this emerging and rapidly evolving topic.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your constructive feedback and appreciation of our manuscript on drone swarm control in agricultural applications. We are delighted to hear that you found the review thorough and that it provides a clear overview of the state of the art in the field.
Our primary aim was indeed to guide researchers in this rapidly evolving area, and we're pleased to know that the manuscript could serve as a valuable starting point.
We greatly value your positive response and will strive to maintain and further the quality of our research contributions in the future.
Attached is an updated version of the manuscript that we have revised based on comments from other reviewers. The revised sections are highlighted in the paper.
Kind regards,
Rui Ming
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This Review shows a theme agricultural Unmanned Aerial Vehicle - UAV. The contribution is significant to the advancement of knowledge. However, some points need to be better detailed for a complete understanding.
Title: ok.
Abstract: I suggest including specific database and analyzed year(s).
Keywords: include words other than the title.
Introduction: is comprehensive whit a good overview of problem in context. However, the general (structural) objective of the paper was not very clear.
Materials and Methods: It was not clear which methodology was adopted. What type of review was carried out and which databases/publications were consulted, year(s), … ? The visual quality of some figures is poor. Results: I suggest separating (better structuring) part of the text and including it as Results. Discussions: Cited only one author (114). I suggest detailing the discussion/authors, for example, comment more on possible limitations of the UAV, detailing with other authors/studies with the use of UAV in agriculture, … Conclusions: It should focus on the main results obtained.Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First and foremost, I wanted to convey my heartfelt thanks for the interest you had shown in our paper and the invaluable feedback you had provided. Your constructive feedback had been indispensable in refining our manuscript, and we are profoundly grateful. We have modified the paper accordingly, and corrections are clarified below point by point and highlighted in the paper, please see the attachment:
1.Abstract:
We concur with your suggestion and have now included the specific databases consulted and the years analyzed for a more comprehensive understanding.
2.Keywords:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have now revised the keyword section to include terms that are more encompassing of the content, beyond just the title.
3.Introduction:
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the introduction by redescribing the section describing the overall goal of the paper. We believe this change provides a clearer framework for the reader.
4.Materials and Methods:
We apologize for the oversight. Based on your suggestion, we have added a section titled "Materials and Methods". The primary content of this section offers a detailed description of the review methodology we adopted. It clearly states the databases/publications we consulted, the span of years we reviewed, and the criteria for inclusion.
5.Figures:
Concerning the quality of our figures, your concerns had been acknowledged. We had revised all the graphics to ensure they had been of the highest resolution and suitable for closer inspection.
6.Results and Conclusions:
Thank you for pointing this out. We've taken your advice into account and made structural adjustments and content additions to the sections in question. Specifically, we've restructured and expanded the original subsections "Discussion and Outlook" and "Conclusions". The revised structure now consists of "Results and Discussion" as the fourth subsection, and "Conclusions and Outlook" as the fifth subsection.
In the fourth subsection, we summarized and analyzed the operational requirements of different production links in unmanned farms and the control methods of drones, and provided specific reasons.
7.Discussions
We acknowledge the limited citations in the discussion. To rectify this, we have expanded our discussion section by citing multiple authors and provided a more detailed commentary on the limitations of UAVs, as well as a comparative analysis with other studies focusing on UAV use in agriculture.
Once again, thank you for your keen observations and recommendations. We believe these revisions have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript and hope it meets the standards of the journal.
Warm regards,
Rui Ming
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I found this paper very interesting. I was excited to read the content about different drone swarm approaches.
However, there are a lot of punctuation and text mistakes. For example:
60 - "[17,18].However" no space.
69 - "[20].Recently" no space
92 - "conditions—light" different dash formats through the paper
125 - "warm[26,27]" no space
There are a lot. Please revise paper.
In my opinion most of the figures are in bad quality. Look at Figure 19 in zoom in. If possible, please provide better-quality figures.
I believe the conclusion is too brief and only provides a summary of the content. Can you please elaborate on the approaches, issues, challenges, and suggestions discussed?
Thank you.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First and foremost, I wanted to convey my heartfelt thanks for the interest you had shown in our paper and the invaluable feedback you had provided. Your constructive feedback had been indispensable in refining our manuscript, and we are profoundly grateful. We have modified the paper accordingly, and corrections are clarified below point by point and highlighted in the paper, please see the attachment:
Regarding the punctuation and textual errors you had highlighted, sincere apologies are in order. We had combed through the manuscript diligently and ensured such oversights had been addressed. The specific instances you had mentioned had been taken into account and corrected.
Concerning the quality of our figures, your concerns had been acknowledged. We had revised all the graphics to ensure they had been of the highest resolution and suitable for closer inspection. Figure 19, in particular, had been given special attention to ensure its clarity.
With respect to the conclusion, your feedback had been most enlightening. We had agreed that our conclusion should transcend a mere summation of our content. We had restructured this section, providing a deeper dive into the methods, issues, challenges, and recommendations, making it far more comprehensive.
Warm regards,
Rui Ming
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors adjusted the main points indicated.
