An IoT-Based System for Efficient Detection of Cotton Pest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript ID Applsci-2175662 “An IoT-Based System for Efficient Detection of Cotton Pest” presents an interesting topic and information. However, this manuscript needs to be drastically revised. The introduction, materials and methods, results and discussions are mixed up throughout the manuscript without clear differentiation of the different sections. The authors should discuss the importance/implications of their results to their own pest management program. They should highlight the novelty of their findings.

 

The paper requires major revisions.

-          The abstract should ideally be structured according to the IMRaD format (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion). The abstract has no logical flow. Provide a structured abstract.

-          Sections 1 and 2 should be combined as introduction and in the introduction section let the authors be clear and specific on the information they want to convey. Structure of the introduction (Information on importance of topic; - Highlights of relevant previous research;- Identification of unanswered question(s); - Approach used to seek the answer(s);- Your main study goals.

-          The methodology used in the study and results should be presented in an organized way. These methodology and results should be presented separately.

-          No discussion is presented in this paper.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The figures should be clearer and the text on the figures should be legible.

Author Response

Kindly see the Attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The study proposes real-time detection of Cotton Flying Moths (CFM) with the assistance 15 of an Internet of Things (IoT) based system in the agricultural field. It is interesting. The results of field testing of CFM  should be provided.

Author Response

Kindly see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper requires minor revisions.

-          Line 14: Insert “production and” between the words “their” and “quality”.

-          Line 59 for figure 1: Figures are not clear, please provide high dpi pictures.

-          Delete lines 162 – 165, this is not adding any value to the manuscript.

-          Line 166: Change “Proposed methodology” to “Materials and Methods”.

-          Page 237 for Figure 2: Figures are not clear, please provide high dpi pictures.

-          Lines 229 and 441: label the figures as Figure 2A and Figure 2B instead of using left and right, respectively.

-          Lines 326 and 327: Figures are not clear, please provide high dpi pictures. Label the figures as Figure 3A and Figure 3B instead of using left and right, respectively.

-          Lines 463 and 464: Label the figures as Figure 7A and Figure 7B instead of using left and right, respectively. Do the same for all the other figures.

-          The legends for figures 13 – 16 are not self-explanatory. Please revise the legends to make them self-explanatory.

Author Response

Kindly see the attachment.

Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.docx