Evaluating Factors Shaping Real-Time Internet-of-Things-Based License Plate Recognition Using Single-Board Computer Technology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents the architecture and results of an LPR system, that is affordable and scalable. The authors described all the components and the merit of each block

There are a few (minor) grammar/typos like:

• The phrase “there has been considerable interest technologies in license plate” could be revised for clarity. Perhaps something like “There has been considerable interest in license plate technologies.”
• The discrepancy in claims about contribution can be addressed by ensuring consistency throughout the paper. Clarifying the research objectives and maintaining coherence in statements will enhance the overall quality.

There is a lot of value in what you have done so far, mainly identifying challenges that could lead to even better results.

Keep up the great work, and I encourage you to explore this fascinating field further.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English Language is good.

Author Response

We are grateful for the meticulous attention to detail, innovative thinking, and comprehensive comprehension of the primary contributions demonstrated during the manuscript review, which significantly enhanced the quality of the manuscript.  

Comment no.	Comments	Explanation, page & paragraph  no. of revised version.
1st comment of the reviewer 1	The phrase “there has been considerable interest technologies in license plate” could be revised for clarity. Perhaps something like “There has been considerable interest in license plate technologies.”	As suggested, we revised the abstract and the first sentence of the introduction.
2nd comment of the reviewer 1	The discrepancy in claims about contribution can be addressed by ensuring consistency throughout the paper. Clarifying the research objectives and maintaining coherence in statements will enhance the overall quality.	As suggested, we revised the abstract, introduction, experimental procedure, discussion, and conclusion to be more coherent.
3rd comment of the reviewer 1	There is a lot of value in what you have done so far, mainly identifying challenges that could lead to even better results.	As suggested, we have revised the conclusion, adding the challenges that could lead to even better results.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

===== Synopsis:

The study presents a license-plate recognition system for reading Thai-license plates running on a Rasperry pi 4. It starts like a review, but then reports a rather small set of experiments. Results appear okay, but lack any comparison to other systems. There is little innovation. I recommend supplying more specifics with regard to the choice of networks for discriminating between Thai letters and Arabic numerals.

 

===== General Comments:

- The study reads very well at the beginning and I enjoyed that part. But then became repeating and very wordy, almost prohibitively wordy. I recommend finding a straighter line, because most readers seek the innovative part of such an article. Or a precise summary comparing methods.

- The study claims to be different from other systems, but does not specify it exactly. For example Figure 3 does not appear to contain any novelty and could be placed into the introduction.

- essential mathematical definitions like average (line 568) and standard deviation (570) don't need to be introduced, unless a specific weighted average or a particular standard deviation is used, in which case one would present the equation.

- What I would find more interesting is what specific networks were used to distinguish between Thai letters and Arabic numerals.

 

===== Specific Comments:

Abstract:

- line 18: "Perform..." sentene sounds incomplete.

- line 24: "effectively enhance recognition accuracy ": unclear what that means exactly.

 

Introduction:

- line 66: "includes". I think 'suffer' would be more precise

- line 68: "algorithm recognition": unclear. Perhaps better as "stepwise, algorithmic recognition flow"

- line 97: "capable effectiveness ": unclear.

 

Literature review:

- line 172: "C++". OpenCV is written in C++ (it used to be written in C only over 20 years ago)

 

- Table 3: "Pytestatext". what is that? do you mean pytessaract?

 

- Figure 7: the dashed lines suggest what exactly? I think it should be rather a gaussian curve.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

quality of English is good, but wording is too exagerated sometimes.

Author Response

We are grateful for the meticulous attention to detail, innovative thinking, and comprehensive comprehension of the primary contributions demonstrated during the manuscript review, which significantly enhanced the quality of the manuscript.  

Comment no.	Comments	Explanation, page & paragraph  no. of revised version.
1st comment of the reviewer 1	Abstract: - line 18: "Perform..." sentence sounds incomplete. - line 24: "effectively enhance recognition accuracy ": unclear what that means exactly.	As suggested, the abstract was revised.
2nd comment of the reviewer 1	T Introduction: - line 66: "includes". I think 'suffer' would be more precise - line 68: "algorithm recognition": unclear. Perhaps better as "stepwise, algorithmic recognition flow" - line 97: "capable effectiveness ": unclear.	As suggested, the Introduction was revised.
3rd comment of the reviewer 1	Literature review: - line 172: "C++". OpenCV is written in C++ (it used to be written in C only over 20 years ago) - Table 3: "Pytestatext". what is that? do you mean pytessaract? - Figure 7: the dashed lines suggest what exactly? I think it should be rather a gaussian curve.	As suggested, we means that C++ could be used with OpenCV. : "Pytestatext" was change to  “Pytesseract”. Figure 7 was used linear to predict the recall and precision trends for camera angles.
4th comment of the reviewer 1	The study reads very well at the beginning and I enjoyed that part. But then became repeating and very wordy, almost prohibitively wordy. I recommend finding a straighter line, because most readers seek the innovative part of such an article. Or a precise summary comparing methods.	As suggested, some parts were revised to be more precise and comprehensive.
5th comment of the reviewer 1	The study claims to be different from other systems, but does not specify it exactly. For example Figure 3 does not appear to contain any novelty and could be placed into the introduction.	As suggested, Figure 3 was revised and changed. Acutually, the system flow was built on our minimal IoT LPR framework only using OpenCV and Pytesseract. However, the framework can be extended and adapted.
6th comment of the reviewer 1	essential mathematical definitions like average (line 568) and standard deviation (570) don't need to be introduced, unless a specific weighted average or a particular standard deviation is used, in which case one would present the equation.	We acknowledged and agreed with your comment, but other reviewers suggested keeping it.
7th comment of the reviewer 1	- What I would find more interesting is what specific networks were used to distinguish between Thai letters and Arabic numerals.	As comments, we added in the content lines 404-416.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

To enhance the paper’s impact, addressing the following challenges could be beneficial:

- The authors should emphasize the unique aspects of their approach. What sets their system apart from existing solutions? Highlighting novel contributions will strengthen the paper.

- The authors acknowledged a couple of limitations. I encouraged the authors to address these points and consider resubmitting the paper after refining their work. 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestions to enhance the paper's impact by emphasizing the unique aspects of our approach and addressing acknowledged limitations more thoroughly. We will highlight our system's novel contributions and ensure comprehensive refinement to meet the journal's standards.