Design of the System for the Analysis of Disinfection in Automated Guided Vehicle Utilisation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The following comments and questions for the revised version:

- What is the type of AGVs considered? UAVs/drones or ground vehicles?

- The outcome of the study is to always consider 2 AGVs. However, how sensitive is this solution? e.g., given another distribution of patients, another layout, etc. Do we need to conduct the whole analysis again for different inputs?

- As the simulation is not agent based, more should be said about the accuracy of the results given dynamics of the environment (human agents and AGVs)

Language and format:

- The introduction paragraphs should be broken down into multiple smaller paragraphs

- The layout symbols and colours in Figures 6, 7 and 12 are not explained

- I suggest using a standard pseudocode notation for the algorithms instead of simtalk 2 which readers might not be familiar with. In fact, I would even recommend to drop the codes and only keep the flowcharts are they represent the same algorithm

- I also suggest converting table 1 into a plot for better readability

- Multiple iterations of proofreading are necessary as there are many language mistakes that should be corrected

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract: It is important to show the result of the experiments into the abstract. Add the result in the last paragraph of abstract so that readers can understand the contents.

Typos: Please re-check typos. Example: page15 first paragraph: "Modern sservice mobile robotic" 

Result: Please add the meaning of the figure 13 (a) and (b). The meaning written is not clear. The reason of why the graph is looking like that is not clear.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript describes a system that can be used to determine the disinfection AGV utilization for analyzing a necessary number of such devices.

(1)  The authors should revise the language in the manuscript, for example, L.34-L.36 on P.1, L50-L54 on P.2 are hard to understand.

(2)  The authors should revise the structure of the manuscript, for example, the first paragraph is too long, which greatly undermines the information conveyed to the readers.

(3)  The Figure 1 and Figure 2 should use the correct format, for example, B in the Figure 2 has special use in flow chart, I suggest that the authors should change accordingly.

(4)  The authors should provide related literature review for the study to support the rational of the research.

(5)  Some of the parts in the result section should be moved into method section.

 

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors present a quite interesting simulation work about which I have some doubts.
Are the percentages they cite on patient typology based on historical data, from what period, and can the pandemic influence these data?
Do they use some kind of statistical test to fit the probability distributions or are they fixed ad-hoc?
Turn from Figure 5 to Figure 7.
It would be interesting to make more emphasis on what this simulation model provides by comparing it, for example, with what is done in standard practice.
I also recommend increasing the number of simulations and analyzing the estimation error of the parameters used.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have taken my comments into account and have improved the work based on them.