A Review of Plant Disease Detection Systems for Farming Applications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

After reviewing, I recommend that the authors write the references (all) according to the journal recommendations (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/instructions). The same observation applies to the numbers of the figures and the tables (the order in the text is: Fig. 1 (page 6), Fig. 2 (page 5), Fig. 3 (page 6), Fig.1 (page 7), Fig. 2 and 3 (page 8), Fig. 7 (page 9), Fig. 4 (page 12), Fig. 5 (page 14), Fig. 6 (page 19), Fig. 7 (page 20), Fig 8 (page 21), Fig. 9 (page 22); Table 1 (page 6), table 2 (page 10), table 3 (page 22), table 2 (page 23).

The figure 4 (or figure 8) located in the page 12 it is not indicated in the text.

Page 5: Shruthi [3] Defines change to Shruthi [3] defines.

The following references [2] [3] [5] [8] [12] [13] [22] [24] [29] [31] [32]  [41]  [42]  [45] [62]  [63]  [71]  [72]  [74]  [75]  [76]  [78]  [79] [80] [82] [85] [87] [88] [90] [113] and [115] are not complete. They do not have the date, type, and other information as seen in the examples 2, 3, 5, 8 and 12. 

[2] U. Ukaegbu, L. Tartibu, T. Laseinde, M. Okwu, and I. Olayode, "A deep learning algorithm for detection of potassium deficiency in a red grapevine and spraying actuation using a raspberry pi3." pp. 1-6.

Ukaegbu, Uchechi Faithful et al. “A deep learning algorithm for detection of potassium deficiency in a red grapevine and spraying actuation using a raspberry pi3.” 2020 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Big Data, Computing and Data Communication Systems (icABCD) (2020): 1-6.

[3] U. Shruthi, V. Nagaveni, and B. Raghavendra, "A review on machine learning classification techniques for plant disease detection." pp. 281-284.

U, Shruthi et al. “A Review on Machine Learning Classification Techniques for Plant Disease Detection.” 2019 5th International Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication Systems (ICACCS) (2019): 281-284.

[5] R. S. Pachade, “A REVIEW ON COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MODERN TECHNIQUES TO ENHANCE INDIAN FARMING USING AI AND MACHINE LEARNING.”

[8] B. Swaminathan, “Identification of Plant Disease and Wetness/Dryness Detection” 

[12] N. Prashar, "A Review on Plant Disease Detection Techniques." pp. 501-506.

 Prashar, Nidhi. “A Review on Plant Disease Detection Techniques.” 2021 2nd International Conference on Secure Cyber Computing and Communications (ICSCCC) (2021): 501-506.8

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The title is suitable and adequate.

The paper is relevant to the journal's scope and it makes some significant contributions to the subject areas. However, there are some major comments as follows that should be implemented:

The paper is written accurately. However, it doesn’t clearly express its case. In other words, an appropriate form of technical language and writing is expected which perfectly aligns with the quality level of our journal.

The paper doesn’t demonstrate an adequate number of papers related to literature and previous work in the discussed field.

For such a popular and attractive topic, recent papers should be investigated. Literature is not state-of-art. The authors must consider the recent and relevant articles for study. Please consider the following works and cite them:

https://doi.org/10.1080/23302674.2021.1919336

https://doi.org/10.1080/23302674.2021.1958023

https://doi.org/10.1080/23302674.2022.2083254

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133849

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04964-1

The research findings are clearly described.

I believe that the paper can have a second revision to make sure about applying the above major comments.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I would recommend this article to this journal to accept in this format. It’s fall in the scope of the journal.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear author(s),

I would like to thank you for submitting your manuscript to Applied Sciences. I appreciate your effort and time dedicated to this research project.

After careful consideration of your work, I have concluded that the research presented in your manuscript is not novel and does not contribute significantly to the field of precision agriculture. While your manuscript is well-written and incorporates 4IR tools and space technology, it does not provide any new insights or advancements in precision agriculture research.

While your research does not meet the standards required for publication at this time, I would like to offer some feedback that may help you improve your future work. One potential avenue for your research could have been to focus on the application of 4IR tools and space technology for precision agriculture in African countries. This could have potentially created a specific niche that may have been of interest to our journal and could have resulted in a publication.

Precision agriculture has the potential to greatly benefit smallholder farmers in Africa by improving crop yields and reducing post-harvest losses. However, the implementation of precision agriculture technologies in Africa has been slow due to various challenges, such as limited access to technology and lack of infrastructure. Focusing your research on addressing these challenges and providing solutions for precision agriculture implementation in African countries could have been a valuable contribution to the field.

I encourage you to consider this feedback and to continue your research in precision agriculture. I wish you the best of luck in your future research endeavors.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The abstract should be corrected as some misleading statements and typo errors are found there. The "and" in ICT shouldn't be capitalized.

On the 3rd paragraph, Pachyderm states that ....."ICT projects that failed because of the technology-reality divide" should be reframed.

Most of the paragraphs are too long especially paragraphs 3 and 4.

The conclusion part of the reviewed paper is totally misleading. It should be rewritten. How can you say that your review has provided background for research in precision agriculture? Precision agriculture is a wide subject and you have only concentrated on an aspect of it. What's the meaning of "the basing principle" under the conclusion aspect.

I noticed that most papers on precision agriculture in several African countries were not even cited. How can you speak for the African continent and not mention Nigeria, Ghana and other neighboring countries. A lot is recently happening in smart agric and precision agriculture in most African countries.

Some of your references don't have dates of publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear author(s),

I would like to thank you for submitting your revised manuscript to Sustainability. I appreciate your effort and time dedicated to addressing the concerns raised during the first round of reviews.

After careful consideration of your revised work, I have concluded that the research presented in your manuscript still lacks novelty and does not contribute significantly to the field. The proposed work is similar to four existing studies: 

1.    M., Goulart, L. R., Davis, C. E., & Dandekar, A. M. (2014). Advanced methods of plant disease detection. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0246-1

2.    Sandhu, G. K., & Kaur, R. (2019). Plant Disease Detection Techniques: A Review. 2019 International Conference on Automation, Computational and Technology Management (ICACTM),

3.    Shruthi, U., Nagaveni, V., & Raghavendra, B. K. (2019). A Review on Machine Learning Classification Techniques for Plant Disease Detection. 2019 5th International Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication Systems (ICACCS),

4.    Vishnoi, V. K., Kumar, K., & Kumar, B. (2020). Plant disease detection using computational intelligence and image processing. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 128(1), 19-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41348-020-00368-0

Given these similarities, your manuscript does not provide any new insights or advancements in plant disease detection systems research, and therefore, I cannot recommend its publication.

While your research does not meet the standards required for publication at this time, I encourage you to consider the feedback from both rounds of reviews and to continue your research. Identifying novel aspects or exploring underrepresented areas in the field may lead to more significant contributions that could warrant publication.

I wish you the best of luck in your future research endeavors.

Author Response

Thank you for your constructive review of this article. Please note that there were three main objectives of this manuscript. They are as follows:

• Gauge the status of the research/research developments in the specific area of plant disease detection systems.
• Outline the basic technology and techniques utilized to implement the plant disease detection systems.
• Identify the research opportunities for further studies.

I strongly believe that this paper does archive all of these objectives. I agree with you that there is a degree of similarity between this paper and the 4 publications you listed in your second review however the amount of detail and the findings of these papers are different. None of these publications have identified the opportunities I have highlighted in this article.