Seed State-Detection Sensor for a Cotton Precision Dibble

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, the presented paper may be interesting to the readers of the Agriculture journal. It describes the authors' proposal for new equipment, which, according to the authors may be useful in cotton plantations.

 

However, some issues should be corrected.

 

In my opinion, some content from the Introduction section should be moved to later sections. For example, lines 35-40 rather describe the technical details of the construction.

 

In lines 44-47, the authors do mention other techniques used for similar purposes but in my opinion, the authors should describe a bit more other types of technical constructions and applications used for the same task.

 

Such a description could help to emphasize the advantages and drawbacks of the proposed construction. Such analysis would be helpful, of course not as a part of the Introduction section, but as a summary and conclusions.

 

The authors review other applications of captive sensors (lines 49 and later), which is required for the introduction, but as I mentioned in the previous remark, I would expect similar acknowledgment of other approaches.

 

Maybe the authors can consider changing the order of narration in the manuscript. In the description of the proposal, they start from theoretical modeling of sensor structure, present some results of such modeling, etc. However, they present both the theoretical background and results of their modeling in one long description. I think the results should be described separately from the methods.

 

However, I also think that most of the readers could be more interested in the final results of the constructed device than these theoretical descriptions. That starts on page 13 (of 17) and some readers may be bored. Maybe the authors can move this theoretical part to the appendix section, to make the paper more interesting to follow.

 

Maybe I missed this part, but I could not find a proposal on how the results of results from the sensor data analysis could be used. How and what actions can be taken when the sensor discovers missing or double seed?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

English must be totally improved by an English native

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has serious problems according to academic writing. Needs a major overhaul, including more in-depth statistical analyses.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

-

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

There is still the need to improve some English sentences. 

I give you some suggestions for keywords

Once again, the notation of bibliographic references in the text should be standardized

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf