Digital Twins Verification and Validation Approach through the Quintuple Helix Conceptual Framework
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper proposes a framework for digital twin verification and validation, which is an important and attractive topic. The paper presents extensive reviews and literature survey, which well defines the gaps and challenges in this area.
The use of quintuple helix model is an interesting idea. However, as a reviewer, I am not convinced why such a model is “the most suitable” for the proposed conceptual framework architecting. Authors did some preliminary studies of building knowledge maps that connect different groups and domains. But what does it have anything to do with helix model? As author suggested, the V&V framework for DT is indeed a “multilayered and multidimensional architecture with bridging mechanism” “framework of framework”. But why does it need to be represented by quintuple helix model? What are the benefits? Does it offer better transparency, computational capabilities, and ultimately, is it able to reduce DT uncertainty? Without an actual case study, I find it really hard to understand how this paper advances the state-of-the-art for digital twin or V&V. It is indeed a difficult and challenging problem, but the contribution of this research is not clear.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish writings are generally good.
Author Response
In the attached file!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper aims to establish a generic framework that addresses the various aspects of Digital Twinning. The multifaceted nature of the problem requires raising the abstraction level in both the Real (Actual) and Virtual domains, effective dissemination of information resources, and a design inspired by verification and validation.
The topic is interesting, but in the current form the contribution remains unclear.
Some central weaknesses:
A concrete example is missing! I agree that the author want to propose a generic framework, but a concrete DT example is necessary to assess its suitability. What is the problem domain of the Actual Twin? Give concrete examples for this (also for the other domains).
Table 3 is an interesting comparative analysis – but too abstract to be able to assess the merit of the generic framework – the authors need to develop a promising example. I suggest a additional chapter: “Exemplary application of the generic framework”
The introduction section requires sensible sub-sections.
Table 1 in this form is confusing – what is really the requirement – is it formulated in the description column (but what is RQ3???)? – somehow the authors always need to describe an intended capability!
The defintion of a feature is unclear.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Some mistakes remain: e.g.
Line 520: Validaion
Figure 24 Modlem Integration
Author Response
In the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work proposes a new conceptual framework using digital twins for verification and validation. In my opinion, the paper is not very much aligned with the scope of the Electronics Journal. I also consider that the paper can be improved if the authors treat:
1. Fig 3. What do the seven cases represent?
2. The structure of the paper should end Section 1.
3. Fig 18 talks about quantuple or quintuple model?
4. Fig 23 talks about nukleotide or nucleotide?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please reconsider the English. For example: matyrity, what bust is (row 351), apperiance, meat/mata/meta (rows 543, 544).
Author Response
In the attached file!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is good to be accepted.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagequality of English is good.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDue to the sensible corrections the paper can now be published.
