RAMAN and Fluorimetric Scattering Lidar Facilitated to Detect Damaged Potatoes by Determination of Spectra
, Maxim Mosyakov, Nikolay Sazonov and Maria Godyaeva
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents quite interesting study on lidar application for detection of damaged potato tubers. Below are detailed comments:
1) “RAMAN lidar” – it should be explanaited, the abbreviation as well specification of the sensor should be presented.
2) In the end of the Introduction the aim of the study should be presented. In current version of the manuscript there is no such part which describe the aim of the study. The aim is presented in the abstract but it should be described in the end of the Introduction too.
3) Fig. 9. Please use Latin alphabet not Russian for each part of the figure (a, b, c).
4) The spectra presented in Fig. 9-13 suggest that they are based on individual case. Probably for each case the spectra will be slightly different. It should be based on at least several replications. There was no any statistical method applied for comparisons of the spectra for different varieties and different parts of the potato tubers. The same problem is with Fog. 14 which was based probably on individual potato tuber for each force. Description of the methodology is not sufficient. Parameters of variability should be presented, which is possible if the replications will be measured not only one case for one force level.
5) Results and Discussion do not contain any typical discussion because there is no reference to other similar studies. Discussion with other similar studies should be presented and advantages and disadvantages of the methodology used in this study should be presented. Some parts of the Conclusions can be moved to the Results and Discussion. Conclusions should be more specific.
Author Response
Hello dear reviewer! I am sending you answers to your comments (I apologize if some of them are misinterpreted on my part)
- RAMAN lidar” – it should be explanaited, the abbreviation as well specification of the sensor should bepresented.
Reviewer № 1, Remark № 1: The decoding of the Raman lidar has been completed and the specification of the sensor has been presented.
- In the end of the Introduction the aim of the study should be presented. In current version of the manuscript there is no such part which describe the aim of the study. The aim is presented in the abstract but it should be described in the end of the Introduction too.
Reviewer № 1, Remark № 2: The introduction presents the purpose of the study.
- 9. Please use Latin alphabet not Russian for each part of the figure (a, b, c).
Reviewer № 1, Remark № 3: Latin letters are used in the designation of Figure 9.
- The spectra presented in Fig. 9 - 13 suggest that they are based on individual case. Probably for each case the spectra will be slightly different. It should be based on at least several replications. There was no any statistical method applied for comparisons of the spectra for different varieties and different parts of the potato tubers. The same problem is with Fog. 14 which was based probably on individual potato tuber for each force. Description of the methodology is not sufficient. Parameters of variability should be presented, which is possible if the replications will be measured not only one case for one force level.
Reviewer № 1, Remark № 4: A more detailed description of the methodology for conducting studies to assess the spectra of damaged and healthy potato tubers is presented.
- Results and Discussion do not contain any typical discussion because there is no reference to other similar studies. Discussion with other similar studies should be presented and advantages and disadvantages of the methodology used in this study should be presented. Some parts of the Conclusions can be moved to the Results and Discussion. Conclusions should be more specific.
Reviewer № 1, Remark № 5: Links to similar studies are provided. The discussion is carried out in accordance with other similar studies, reflecting the advantages of the methodology used. Part of the conclusions was moved to the "Results and Discussion" section. The conclusions have been corrected.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. Lines 56-61: in the description of the source code [6], a reference is given to Figure 1, which is described in [1].
2. Lines 138-143: How did the authors intend to use the UAV to assess the condition of potato tubers?
3. Which spectrum was measured at the installation (Fig. 4): raman scattering or luminescent radiation?
4. It is unclear why Figure 6 is given, how it was obtained and what relation it has to spectra?
5. There are no references to literature in the text of the manuscript, except for [1-4], [6] and [29].
Author Response
Hello dear reviewer! I am sending you answers to your comments (I apologize if some of them are misinterpreted on my part)
- Lines 56-61: in the description of the source code [6], a reference is given to Figure 1, which is described in [1].
Reviewer № 2, Remark № 1: Notice removed.
- Lines 138-143: How did the authors intend to use the UAV to assess the condition of potato tubers?
Reviewer № 2, Remark № 2: Notice removed.
- Which spectrum was measured at the installation (Fig. 4): raman scattering or luminescent radiation?
Reviewer № 2, Remark № 3: Notice removed.
4. It is unclear why Figure 6 is given, how it was obtained and what relation it has to spectra?
Reviewer № 2, Remark № 4: Figure 6 shows the dependences of the force impact on potato tubers by the device shown in Figure 2 in order to synchronize the mechanical impact on tubers and evaluate by the fluorescence method, i.e. registration of force impact on potato tubers and determination of their spectra.
5. There are no references to literature in the text of the manuscript, except for [1-4], [6] and [29].
Reviewer № 2, Remark № 5: Notice removed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Below are detailed notes for the work:
1) Line 52 - it is KN, it should be kN
2) Line 52 - throughout the manuscript correct the notation "value" "unit of measure" (should be written with a space), see e.g. lines 52, 66 ...
3) Chapter 2. Materials and Methods - divide into subsections
4) Describe in detail the methods of statistical analysis of the results used
5) Do the data in Chart 6 differ significantly? The trend lines are invisible to the reader, as are the values of the determination coefficient (I suggest presenting the data in the form of point scatter ...)
6) The graph in Fig. 9 is illegible
7) Fig. 14 - inconsistent with the MDPI standard
8) Conclusions - should be constructive, indicate / emphasize the application use of the obtained research results (I suggest moving some of the content to the "discussion" and create points with conclusions)
9) The work requires significant redrafting, in its present form it is hardly legible
10) Literature does not contain the latest items of European / world bibliography in the subject of the presented research
Author Response
Hello dear reviewer! I am sending you answers to your comments (I apologize if some of them are misinterpreted on my part)
- Line 52 - it is KN, it should be kN.
Reviewer № 3, Remark № 1: Notice removed.
- Line 52 - throughout the manuscript correct the notation "value" "unit of measure" (should be written with a space), see e.g. lines 52, 66.
Reviewer № 3, Remark № 2: Notice removed.
- Chapter 2. Materials and Methods - divide into subsections?
Reviewer № 3, Remark № 3: Notice removed.
- Describe in detail the methods of statistical analysis of the results used.
Reviewer № 3, Remark № 4: The methods used for statistical analysis of the results are described in detail.
- Do the data in Chart 6 differ significantly? The trend lines are invisible to the reader, as are the values of the determination coefficient (I suggest presenting the data in the form of point scatter.
Reviewer № 3, Remark № 5: Figure 6 data is presented as a point scatter plot.
- The graph in Fig. 9 is illegible.
Reviewer № 3, Remark № 6: Notice removed.
- 14 - inconsistent with the MDPI standard
Reviewer № 3, Remark № 7: This remark has not been eliminated, since without this schedule, the results of the research will not be fully reflected.
- Conclusions - should be constructive, indicate / emphasize the application use of the obtained research results (I suggest moving some of the content to the "discussion" and create points with conclusions).
Reviewer № 3, Remark № 8: The conclusions have been modified and are presented in the form of paragraphs.
- The work requires significant redrafting, in its present form it is hardly legible.
Reviewer № 3, Remark № 9: Notice removed.
- Literature does not contain the latest items of European / world bibliography in the subject of the presented research.
Reviewer № 3, Remark № 10: Notice removed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript was improved according all my comments.
Some figures, eg. Fig.6, are not clear enough because of low quality (resolution). Please improve the quality.
Author Response
Hello dear reviewer! Numbers and captions in Figure 6 are enlarged. Sorry if this comment failed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
1) Table 1. Schemes of experiments, laser sources, and spectrometers – wiersz „Scheme of installation” in the first column there is no diagram and in the second column(Pulsed Diode-Pumped Nd: YLiF4 Solid-State Laser (Laser Compact, DTL-319QT)) it is illegible (and repeated below as fig 4), in my opinion this row in the table is not needed
2) fig. 6 - improve the legibility of the figure
3) line 55 [6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] – [6, 8-12]
4) line 60 15kHz. – 15 kHz (check the entire manuscript in the context of this note)
5) I still believe that the significance of the differences in the results is not sufficiently described
Author Response
Hello dear reviewer! The remarks you indicated have been eliminated, but not in full, since it is not possible to eliminate the remark regarding the expansion of the significance of the research results. I'm sorry if it was not possible to fulfill your comments in full.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The theme of this manuscript is interesting and within the scope of journal. However major revision is suggested to further improve it's quality.
Rewrite the introduction section. Try to make it more interesting.
Strengthen Literature review section. Refer recent, relevant journal papers.
Try to improve Research methodology section. Benchmark results with existing literature
Rewrite Discussion section logically
Rewrite Conclusion section. Highlight novelty of this study
Author Response
Hello dear reviewer! I am sending you a corrected version of the manuscript and a response to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript entitled „The Results of Laboratory Studies of the Device for Evaluation of Suitability of Potato Tubers for Mechanized Harvesting” presents study on damage of potato depending on machinery used for harvesting.
The manuscript contains many drawbacks which should be improved.
Formatting is not consistent with guidelines. For example authors should be without scientific degrees/titles.
Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. Fig. 10 Please use dot not comma as a decimal separator. The same in the text of the manuscript, e.g line 264.
Titles of the figures should be self-explanatory, i.e. clear enough without reading of all the manuscript.
Fig. 10. What is on horizontal axis (values from 1 to 15)?
References are not formatted according guidelines for the authors.
The manuscript do not contain any statistical analysis. For such studies statistical comparisons based on e.g. ANOVA or evaluation of relationships based on analysis of regression should be at least presented.
Discussion is very poor. There is no proper discussion. The results should be compared to the results obtained in similar studies. In this case there is no references to other studies.
Author Response
Hello dear reviewer! I am sending you a corrected version of the manuscript and a response to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript needs thorough revision.
Please revise the title.
Please remove the job title of authors.
Please shorten the abstract.
Please provide a literature review on mechanization of harvesting and then place the issue of potato harvesting.
Please provide a schematic diagram of harvester and describe the components and their functions.
Please describe the proposed design and fabricated structure.
Please use equation editor to write the equations and describe the parameters in the text.
Please show the parameters in conceptual diagram of the developed harvester.
After all these modifications, the readers can understand what the authors are trying to contribute. The present form of the manuscript is not possible to evaluate.
Author Response
Hello dear reviewer! I am sending you a corrected version of the manuscript and a response to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is interesting and within the scope of this journal. However major revision is suggested to further enhance its quality and content.
Careful editing of language is suggested.
Rewrite the Introduction section. Make it more interesting.
Literature review section is poorly written. Ensure that the Literature review is uptodate and references are from reputed journals.
problem statement is satisfactory.
Research methodology section is satisfactory.
Highlight the novelty of this study.
Write Managerial Implications as a separate section.
Revise Conclusion section. Benchmark the results of this study with existing literature. Mention limitations and future scope appropriately.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript was improved according all my comments but some improvements are still necessary:
1) Style of citation within the text of the manuscript is not proper. Please adjust the style to the guidelines for authors.
2) Figures are still not clear enough without reading all the text.
Reviewer 3 Report
The plots, equations, and arguments are not still publishable level. Hence the manuscript must be rejected.
