WG-3D: A Low-Cost Platform for High-Throughput Acquisition of 3D Information on Wheat Grain
, Tan Sun 1 and Shengping Liu 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article contributes to the Agriculture journal, however, is important to add some comments that I already did to the manuscript body.
I think that should be one corresponding.
I n Figure 1, please rewrite YM 158#
In Table 1, please homogenize such as Figure 1 YM 1#, YM 2#...
In Discussion section add two or three discussions with others researchers (compare findings).
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your recognition of this study and suggestions for improvement!
- All correspondence have been addressed.
- We have rewritten it.
- We have rewritten it.
- We have added two new discussions, one is the comparison with related research, and the other is the cluster analysis.
More detailed revisions could be seen in the Revised Manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors overuse the personal pronouns in the first person: "we" and "our". It is an academic text style that is appearing more and more these days. I don't particularly agree, but it's a secondary point.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your recognition of this study and suggestions for improvement!
- We have rewritten it.
Detailed revisions could be seen in the Revised Manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The present manuscript entitled "WG-3D: A low-cost platform for high-throughput acquisition of wheat grain 3D information" presents and accurately describes a platform for image analysis characterization of wheat grains.
While the study has some merit, in particular related to the platform used (here it must be reported and quantified the low-cost) it lacks on the validation.
Much effort was posed on the description of the method (please have a look on the comments reported in the attached file) but apart for 300 seeds of three varieties the second group of seed was not assessed for accuracy of estimation. The experiment in my opinion is too small and additional experiment with estimation accuracy must be added. As reported in the attached file, I would suggest to express the mean error on a relative scale to be more scale to actual seed size and shape. Results and, in particular, discussion sections are too small and new experiments must be inserted and commented compared to what is actually reported in literature.
For the above reported comments and those inserted as comments in the attached file I do not recommend the present manuscript to be accepted for publication in Agriculture.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your recognition of this study and suggestions for improvement!
- We have replaced the ME evaluation indicators with RMSE and MAPE, and rewrote the accuracy section.
- We have added two new discussions, one is the comparison with related research, and the other is the cluster analysis.
More detailed revisions could be seen in the Revised Manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript in the present form results improved in readability and scientific soundness. Despite I don't see the real advantage of including a cluster analysis, the manuscript can be accepted for publication in the present form.
