A Graph Matching Model for Designer Team Selection for Collaborative Design Crowdsourcing Tasks in Social Manufacturing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Abstract: what do you mean by ‘The experimental results show the advancement of our model.’, you need to elaborate on the advancement.
2. The list of contributions in Sec1 are verbose and not focused. Please rewrite them all again.
3. Where is the literature review section which usually comes after Sec1? This is missing.
4. Sec2.2 is vague, you need to add a visual diagram for the method to make it easy for the reader to grasp the context.
5. Line 309, page 9, this is not a table, so the caption is wrong.
6. Sec3 is called results, and section 3.4 is called results, this is very confusing.
7. I don't think that the case study is in the right position in the paper, as it comes after the results, so what is the benefit of it?
Author Response
Point 1: Abstract: what do you mean by ‘The experimental results show the advancement of our model.’, you need to elaborate on the advancement.
Response 1: I have revised the sentence, I changed it to ‘The experimental results show that our model can more accurately find graph pairs based on similar structure.’, as shown in Abstract.
Point 2: The list of contributions in Sec1 are verbose and not focused. Please rewrite them all again.
Response 2: The list of contributions in Sec1 has been rewrited.
Point 3: Where is the literature review section which usually comes after Sec1? This is missing.
Response 3: The literature review section has been added, as shown in paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of Sec 1.
Point 4: Sec2.2 is vague, you need to add a visual diagram for the method to make it easy for the reader to grasp the context.
Response 4: I have added a visual diagram in Sec2.2, as shown in Figure 2.
Point 5: Line 309, page 9, this is not a table, so the caption is wrong.
Response 5: I don't quite understand what the expert said "Line 309, page 9, this is not a table".
Point 6: Sec3 is called results, and section 3.4 is called results, this is very confusing.
Response 6: I have modified the title of sec3 to ''Experiments''.
Point 7: I don't think that the case study is in the right position in the paper, as it comes after the results, so what is the benefit of it?
Response 7: I totally agree with the expert's suggestion. Therefore I have made the case study a separate chapter, as shown in sec4. This chapter gives examples to prove the practicality and applicability of the improved graph matching model in this paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
A literature review section is missing. The research idea is not properly contextualised, as there is a need of offering a detailed review of relevant literature that help the authors developing the key arguments that support their proposed research. Try and provide more references to support your ideas that are typically substantiated by only one source – and as recent as possible. ‘emerged at the historic moment’ – what do you mean? ‘through qualified groups that are defined to enhance the value of communication’ – unclear. You should compare your results with others in terms of concrete data for better research integrative value. Figure 1 is inconclusive. The manuscript will benefit from further discussion of key concepts and methodological criteria in order to offer a better articulation between theory and data. ‘According to references [40]’ – say directly. The Discussion and Conclusions sections are too short. The manuscript requires major revisions to contextualize the merits of the study and potential uses of its methodology in future studies. The authors have failed to engage in important aspects of the various issues raised in the paper and have not provided sufficient (in some cases any) empirical or academic evidence supporting central and/or controversial points. The conclusion should clarify the main contribution of the paper and the value added to the field. A more discursive, analytical conclusion is needed, that engages with the theoretical questions in scholarship raised earlier in the paper.
The relationship between deep learning-assisted smart process planning and digital twin-based product development and manufacturing processes as regards collaborative design crowdsourcing tasks has not been covered, and thus such sources can be cited:
Lăzăroiu, G., Andronie, M., Iatagan, M., Geamănu, M., Ștefănescu, R., and Dijmărescu, I. (2022). “Deep Learning-Assisted Smart Process Planning, Robotic Wireless Sensor Networks, and Geospatial Big Data Management Algorithms in the Internet of Manufacturing Things,” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 11(5): 277. doi: 10.3390/ijgi11050277.
Michalkova, L., Machova, V., and Carter, D. (2022). “Digital Twin-based Product Development and Manufacturing Processes in Virtual Space: Data Visualization Tools and Techniques, Cloud Computing Technologies, and Cyber-Physical Production Systems,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 17(2): 37–51. doi: 10.22381/emfm17220222.
Andronie, M., Lăzăroiu, G., Iatagan, M., Uță, C., Ștefănescu, R., and Cocoșatu, M. (2021). “Artificial Intelligence-Based Decision-Making Algorithms, Internet of Things Sensing Networks, and Deep Learning-Assisted Smart Process Management in Cyber-Physical Production Systems,” Electronics 10(20): 2497. doi: 10.3390/electronics10202497.
Lyons, N. (2022). “Deep Learning-based Computer Vision Algorithms, Immersive Analytics and Simulation Software, and Virtual Reality Modeling Tools in Digital Twin-driven Smart Manufacturing,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 17(2): 67–81. doi: 10.22381/emfm17220224.
Author Response
The literature review section has been added, as shown in paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of Sec 1. Sec1 has also been rewritten. Some inappropriate sentences, such as ‘emerged at the historic moment’ and ‘through qualified groups that are defined to enhance the value of communication’, have also been revised. Figure 1 has been explained in more detail as shown in Sec2.1.2. Sec 4 has been taken as the case study, Sec 5 has been taken as the conclusion, and the conclusion has also been rewritten. Thanks to the experts for your suggestions, the author of this article, as the main contributor to the article, did not cite the references mentioned by the experts, because this article did not involve the research direction proposed by the experts.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed my previously raised comments in this version of the manuscript. I am happy with the current version to be published in the present format.
Author Response
I am very grateful to the experts for your suggestion and approval of my revisions. I have also checked my paper again and again, focusing on checking English spelling, grammar, words and sentences.
Reviewer 2 Report
Point-by-point clarifications are needed.
Author Response
First of all, I am very grateful to the experts for your comments on the revision of the paper. Secondly, I'm so sorry for not clarifying the expert’s sugestions point-by-point. I will clarify the expert’s sugestions again point by point as follows:
Point 1: A literature review section is missing. The research idea is not properly contextualised, as there is a need of offering a detailed review of relevant literature that help the authors developing the key arguments that support their proposed research.
Response 1: The literature review section has been added, as shown in paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 of Sec 1. Introduction in Sec1 has also been rewritten to reflect the research ideas in the paper.
Point 2: Try and provide more references to support your ideas that are typically substantiated by only one source – and as recent as possible.
Response 2: A total of 36 references are cited in the paper, of which only 4 references are relatively old, these 4 references are very classic and cannot be deleted, and the rest are recent references.
Point 3: ‘emerged at the historic moment’ – what do you mean? ‘through qualified groups that are defined to enhance the value of communication’ – unclear. You should compare your results with others in terms of concrete data for better research integrative value.
Response 3: These inappropriate sentences have been removed and revised.
Point 4: Figure 1 is inconclusive. The manuscript will benefit from further discussion of key concepts and methodological criteria in order to offer a better articulation between theory and data.
Response 4: Figure 1 has been explained in more detail as shown in Sec2.1.2.
Point 5: ‘According to references [40]’ – say directly.
Response 5: I have revised it like this
Point 6: The Discussion and Conclusions sections are too short. The manuscript requires major revisions to contextualize the merits of the study and potential uses of its methodology in future studies. The authors have failed to engage in important aspects of the various issues raised in the paper and have not provided sufficient (in some cases any) empirical or academic evidence supporting central and/or controversial points. The conclusion should clarify the main contribution of the paper and the value added to the field. A more discursive, analytical conclusion is needed, that engages with the theoretical questions in scholarship raised earlier in the paper.
Response 6: The original Sec 4 and 5 are merged into the current Sec 5. Sec 4 has been taken as the case study, Sec 5 has been taken as the conclusion, and the conclusion has also been rewritten to reflect contextualize the merits of the study and potential uses of its methodology in future studies. The conclusion has clarified the main contribution of the paper and the value added to the field.
Point 7: The relationship between deep learning-assisted smart process planning and digital twin-based product development and manufacturing processes as regards collaborative design crowdsourcing tasks has not been covered, and thus such sources can be cited:
Lăzăroiu, G., Andronie, M., Iatagan, M., Geamănu, M., Ștefănescu, R., and Dijmărescu, I. (2022). “Deep Learning-Assisted Smart Process Planning, Robotic Wireless Sensor Networks, and Geospatial Big Data Management Algorithms in the Internet of Manufacturing Things,” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 11(5): 277. doi: 10.3390/ijgi11050277.
Michalkova, L., Machova, V., and Carter, D. (2022). “Digital Twin-based Product Development and Manufacturing Processes in Virtual Space: Data Visualization Tools and Techniques, Cloud Computing Technologies, and Cyber-Physical Production Systems,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 17(2): 37–51. doi: 10.22381/emfm17220222.
Andronie, M., Lăzăroiu, G., Iatagan, M., Uță, C., Ștefănescu, R., and Cocoșatu, M. (2021). “Artificial Intelligence-Based Decision-Making Algorithms, Internet of Things Sensing Networks, and Deep Learning-Assisted Smart Process Management in Cyber-Physical Production Systems,” Electronics 10(20): 2497. doi: 10.3390/electronics10202497.
Lyons, N. (2022). “Deep Learning-based Computer Vision Algorithms, Immersive Analytics and Simulation Software, and Virtual Reality Modeling Tools in Digital Twin-driven Smart Manufacturing,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 17(2): 67–81. doi: 10.22381/emfm17220224.
Response 7: Since this paper does not involve the research direction given by the experts, the references proposed by the experts are not cited.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
1. There is no Literature review section.
2. There is no Discussion section.
3. Most of the cited sources are not journal articles.
Author Response
Point 1: There is no Literature review section.
Response 1: The literature review section has been added, as shown in “Related Work” of Sec 1.
Point 2: There is no Discussion section.
Response 2: Since the academic editor require that "4.3 Csae Results and Discussion" be added to Sec4, Discussion section is not used as a separate chapter, as shown in 4.3
Point 3: Most of the cited sources are not journal articles.
Response 3: Because the research direction of this paper can refer to less journal articles, more conference papers are helpful for the research direction of this paper.
