Integration of Digital Twin, IoT and LoRa in SCARA Robots for Decentralized Automation with Wireless Sensor Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The abbreviation SCARA is introduced in the abstract without explanation. It would be clearer for the reader if the full term is provided alongside the abbreviation. Additionally, numerical values should be included to support statements regarding the accuracy and real-time performance of the implementation.

• Lines 61-62: The statement regarding challenges such as data security, real-time synchronization, and interoperability between heterogeneous devices needs further elaboration. I recommend expanding the discussion on the research gap and problem statement with additional references.

• Lines 98-99: The claim that modeling and simulation have been widely used in optimizing industrial processes, particularly in the automotive industry, requires a supporting reference.

• Line 153: The statement about the technical and economic barriers hindering large-scale adoption of Digital Twins (DT) in SCARA robots should be supported with a relevant reference.

• Line 226: The assertion that LoRa (Long Range) technology is an effective solution for connectivity issues in industrial environments, especially in areas with limited traditional network infrastructure, needs a supporting reference.

• Line 274: The manuscript states that the three-dimensional modeling of the SCARA robot was performed using Inventor 2025 and integrated into Blender. A reference should be provided for the Inventor software.

• Line 303: The description of the system’s data transmission mentions an integrated antenna. The specific model of the antenna should be included, along with a reference if available.

• A block diagram illustrating all hardware (HW) and software (SW) components used in the system implementation would enhance clarity.

• The Results section discusses three test scenarios; however, more technical details are needed regarding the test steps and expected outcomes.

• The meaning of cycle time in the results table should be clarified.

• Line 378: The comparison with previous studies states that similar speed and acceleration settings yield equivalent performance across different industrial applications. This discussion should be expanded by elaborating on prior studies and providing numerical comparisons to highlight the advantages of this approach.

• More details are required regarding the experimental design, along with additional comparisons to similar research.

• The results section focuses primarily on the robot’s response time, but no numerical data is provided on robot precision. Including precision-related metrics would strengthen the findings.

• Overall, the manuscript would benefit from further details on system architecture, test cases used for validation, and a comparative analysis with similar studies on SCARA robots and IoT-based solutions to highlight the advantages of the proposed approach

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Please find the comments in the attachment. Thanks!

Best

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is lacking the novelty and identity as it is clear from the following points: 
1.    The abstract is presenting a description for the LoRa Technologies and there is no clear contribution throughout this study. 
2.    In the following context “However, traditional automation architectures rely heavily on wired communication and centralized control systems, which present limitations in terms of scalability, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness” this sentence is not true because not all automation architectures has the same features.
3.    In the following sentence “This study investigates the integration of Digital Twin, IoT, and LoRa technologies in SCARA robots to enable decentralized automation using wireless sensor networks.”; during all this study the authors saying the Digital Twin and they actually utilizing it and they did not say how they already created the DT
4.    The Background section and the Methodology did not add any new contributions to the scientific community.
Since there is no novelty out of this research so I do reject the paper to be published in its current format 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the feasibility of implementing DT, IoT, and LoRa technologies in SCARA robots to enable decentralized automation through wireless sensor networks. The novelty of this paper appears to be marginal. The detailed comments are as follows:

1. The organization of this paper is inappropriate. The introduction and background occupy more than half of the manuscript, while the method and results sections are overly simplified. The manuscript reads more like an experimental report rather than a research article.
2. None of the figures are referenced in the main text, making the relationship between the text and figures unclear.
3. The study lacks quantitative results regarding latency, synchronization, and cost. The effectiveness of the system in achieving stable, real-time data transmission with minimal latency while ensuring precise robotic movements is not supported by the experimental results.
4. In Section "5. Discussion", the authors claim that "the controller parameterization can be adjusted to maximize productivity without compromising movement accuracy." However, no empirical evidence supports this claim as movement accuracy was not measured.
5. It is highly intuitive that the cycle time of the robot would decrease with a higher average speed and acceleration. The simulation appears to lack meaningful contribution or insight.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewers addressed the concerns and the paper can be accepted in the current form

Author Response

Thank very much

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made improvements to the manuscript. This reviewer has no additional comments.

Author Response

Thank very much