IoT Framework for Measurement and Precision Agriculture: Predicting the Crop Using Machine Learning Algorithms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presents the “IoT framework for Measurement and Precision Agriculture: Predicting the crop using Machine learning algorithms”. However, the following observations are made:

1. A lot of grammatical/spelling mistakes. The authors of this manuscript are suggested to proofread this manuscript.
2. The contribution of the authors is not clear.
3. The previous studies are weak. Add more studies.
4. Redraw all figures as they are not sharp enough.
5. Add more latest references from 2021.
6. The organization of the paper is missing. Add it at the end of the Introduction section.
7. Add a reference in line 184.
8. Formatting issue in Table 3.
9. In Figure 5, specify the Classifier and Receiver Operator.
10. Discuss the findings before the conclusion in a separate section.

Author Response

Thank you for oppotunity for revising our manuscript. Pls find response to the reviwers comments attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This topic of research is contemporaneous and very relevant. However, some points are required to be observe:

a) Abstract-  it is suggested to be rewrite, with  context, research objective and experimental results in a more logic sequence. Think a about an ordinary  reader, and the two first sentences, where machine learning and recommendation does not a clear links between these two  paradigms ;

b)  Introduction - some extra attention is necessary, e.g. "India ranks second..." which is the origin from this and others statements?

The reference  (National Research Council, 1997) does not fit the others.

"IOT application" or IoT application? Remember that this are relevant observation to those new readers in the subject IoT not IOT. Correct those occurrence's inside the paper. 

Figure 1 requires some attention because it is not complete clear in the blue text.

Figure 2 IoT clients Server Model, is it correct this tag of the Figure 2? I believe that it could be: IoT Client Server Model, Proposed Client Server Model. Why to have "clients Server"? "clients" are less important then "Server", why to utilize lower case for clients?

It is strong suggest to transfer Figures 2 and 3, and subsection 1.2 to the Section 3.  

In the Introduction usually it is expected to exist topics related to the general context of the field, comments about what researchers are doing, a skin indication about the contribution and results and at the end of this section it is important to have a paragraph with the paper structure.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW - An initial paragraph before subsections are important to provide a general view why you choose those.

3. METHODOLOGY - A final paragraph with your specialist  assessment it would be interesting. As it is subsection are isolated from each other.

4. Data Preparation Cum Generation -

"The dataset used for our experimental analysis is taken from a public repository known as the Kaggle database."  It is required a reference where a reader can find this database.

WEKA (Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis) Reference?

Table 3 requires some observation related to the format

5. Conclusions - This section must be enhanced with much more assessments related to the present research and paragraph of future work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving oppotunity to revise our work. Pls find responses attached.

 

Regards

Ketan

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. A lot of grammatical mistakes. This manuscript must be proofread by a native English speaker.
2. Correct all the references in the text. The way to cite the references is not correct. follow the journal guidelines.
3. Reference [34] is not cited in the text.
4. Figures 1,2,3 are still not sharp enough.

Author Response

Dear Editor

 

Please find responses to reviwers comments attached.

 

Thank you

 

Ketan Kotecha

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Redraw the figures 1 to 3. These figures are not sharp enough.

Author Response

Dear Reviwer,

Thank you for the suggestion. We have improved the quality of fig 1 to 3 in the updated manuscript. Pls, let us know they are okay.

 

Regards

Ketan