Research on Holographic Visualization Verification Platform for Construction Machinery Based on Mixed Reality Technology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have highlighted on the application of mixed reality as described in the topic. The explanation is precise and concise, which makes the article easy to comprehend. To make the paper more meaningful, perhaps this paper can include some philosophical stances to pragmatically justify the perspective of how the authors view the world to create values and meanings to the authors’ choices of how the research is conducted. Having said this, more citation is needed to support the philosophical standpoint for other researchers to learn how to obtain new knowledge. Wish the paper has hypothesis for other researchers to discover the relationship between the philosophical stances and the empirical evidence for future research.
In the discussion section, the authors have summarised the result from the observation of the case study to the potential of future research. Wish the paper could have a more elaborative discussion, especially on how this new finding can be placed within the context of the previous studies.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1.To make the paper more meaningful, perhaps this paper can include some philosophical stances to pragmatically justify the perspective of how the authors view the world to create values and meanings to the authors’ choices of how the research is conducted.
Response 1:This is a very valuable piece of advice, but none of us are good in this area.
Point 2:Wish the paper could have a more elaborative discussion, especially on how this new finding can be placed within the context of the previous studies.
Response 2:We have readjusted the structure of this paper by dividing the original introduction into introduction and related work, wo highlight the research background, purpose and content of this paper. We have also made more detailed discussion in the discussion part, added the conclusion part, and moved the future work to the conclusion part, making the structure of this paper clearer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper proposes an application of mixed reality in the life cycle of a construction machine. The paper topic is very interesting and it has received quite a lot of attention recently both in academia and in practice. The authors intend to contribute to the literature demonstrating the benefits of the application of MR approach in practice, developing a visualization verification platform. Although exists a other papers in the area, this paper try to demonstrate the benefits of this design appraoch. Although the paper is valuable and the research method selected is appropriate for the type of research conducted, I think that the paper could be improved in some sections. First of all, the research questions are not stated clearly and also the structure of the paper is a little bit confused. The introduction section in my opinion must be devoted to the context of the study and the aim, in this paper seems that introdcution is more a research background section... I suggest to split these two section in order to improve the level of the paper. The research background is robust but could be enlarged citing other papers that focuses on tractors design with MR approach, other references from other field of application (medicine and education) of MR are not necessary could be deleted. Also results are not presented in a clear way and could be deeper discussed. Authors have reported a lot of case study that cover the whole life cycle of the product but every case study need a further discussion.
Other minor issues:
- line 131 dot instead of comma
- line 153 unity with capital U because is a software
- line 467 capital letter is missing
- last author name, wrong font (such as other words along the manuscript)
- figure 1: enlarge the figure to enhance the readability
- table 1: define better num of users and num of OO
Author Response
Point 1: The paper proposes an application of mixed reality in the life cycle of a construction machine. The paper topic is very interesting and it has received quite a lot of attention recently both in academia and in practice. The authors intend to contribute to the literature demonstrating the benefits of the application of MR approach in practice, developing a visualization verification platform. Although exists a other papers in the area, this paper try to demonstrate the benefits of this design appraoch. Although the paper is valuable and the research method selected is appropriate for the type of research conducted, I think that the paper could be improved in some sections. First of all, the research questions are not stated clearly and also the structure of the paper is a little bit confused. The introduction section in my opinion must be devoted to the context of the study and the aim, in this paper seems that introdcution is more a research background section... Point 1:I suggest to split these two section in order to improve the level of the paper. The research background is robust but could be enlarged citing other papers that focuses on tractors design with MR approach, other references from other field of application (medicine and education) of MR are not necessary could be deleted. Also results are not presented in a clear way and could be deeper discussed. Authors have reported a lot of case study that cover the whole life cycle of the product but every case study need a further discussion.
Response 1:
- The first part of the manuscript is divided into two parts. The first part introduces the research background, research purpose and research content of the project, related research on MR Technology in industrial field in recent years is newly added (Lines 34-49).and the second part introduces related work;
- Add the conclusion part to the sixth part of the paper and move the future work part to the conclusion part. (Line 712-732)
- The discussion section further discusses the results of each case. (Line 586-710)
Point 2: Other minor issues:
- line 131 dot instead of comma
- line 153 unity with capital U because is a software
- line 467 capital letter is missing
- last author name, wrong font (such as other words along the manuscript)
- figure 1: enlarge the figure to enhance the readability
- table 1: define better num of users and num of OO
Response 2: The first 5 questions have been modified, and the last one we think this set of data can explain the problem, The modified position has been marked with yellow background.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The title of the research topic should be adjusted to reflect the case study and the content of the investigation.
The authors should provide adequate information on the research background, objectives and results.
The conclusion part is missing in the report.
Figures 3, 5, 6 and 16 resolution should be improved.
Improve the resolution of equation 2.
Extended Reality (XR) was extensively used in the report without introducing it (lines 96,118, 191, 141 etc.).
XR is the umbrella term encapsulating AR, VR, and MR. But it was sometimes interchangeably used.
The results in the abstract did not reflect the outcome of the case study in the report. For example lines 22, 23, and 24 (The experimental results show that ......50% more than.... traditional R&D).
Special attention should be given to line 183, where n not num,
Lines 218 and 320 need corrections.
Author Response
Point 1: The title of the research topic should be adjusted to reflect the case study and the content of the investigation.
Response 1: The title of the paper has been changed to “Research on Holographic Visualization Verification Platform of Construction Machinery Based on Mixed Reality Technology”.
Point 2: The authors should provide adequate information on the research background, objectives and results.
Response 2: We have readjusted the structure of this paper by dividing the original introduction into introduction and related work, wo highlight the research background, purpose and content of the first section.
Point 3: The conclusion part is missing in the report.
Response 3: We have also made more detailed discussion in the discussion part, added the conclusion part, and moved the future work to the conclusion part, making the structure of this paper clearer.
Point 4: Figures 3, 5, 6 and 16 resolution should be improved.
Response 4: Done. (Subsequent changes are marked in the manuscript with a green background)
Point 5: Improve the resolution of equation 2.
Response 5: Done.
Point 6: Extended Reality (XR) was extensively used in the report without introducing it (lines 96,118, 191, 141 etc.). XR is the umbrella term encapsulating AR, VR, and MR. But it was sometimes interchangeably used.
Response 6: Line 191,421,449,450,453,456 XR is used to refer to MR And VR, other positions have been modified.
Point 7: The results in the abstract did not reflect the outcome of the case study in the report. For example lines 22, 23, and 24 (The experimental results show that ......50% more than.... traditional R&D).
Response 7: Done.
Point 8: Special attention should be given to line 183, where n not num,
Response 8: Done.
Point 9: Lines 218 and 320 need corrections.
Response 9: Done.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
