Visualization of Environmental Sensing Data in the Lake-Oriented Digital Twin World: Poyang Lake as an Example

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presents a visualization framework to integrate, manage, analyze, and visualize the environmental sensing data in the digital twin of lakes. This is a fascinating topic which deserves more exposure, and the unique research perspective deserves more attention from other researcher. However, I have a few comments and suggestions which hopefully would help perfecting the manuscript (see comments to authors).

1.   Some quantitative evaluation should be added to the description of the method in the abstract, such as the improvement of accuracy and efficiency

2.  There has been a lot of work in the current research of video fusion. In this paper, the contribution of video fusion technology needed to be further described.

3.  On page 13, this paper uses particle technology to construct vector field. The author should further explain the formulation basis of vector field density and color.

4.  On page 7, two different contents have the same title "Set the particle life cycle".

5.  Line 284 is the punctuation mark in Chinese.

6.  The format of the pictures in the manuscript is not beautiful, such as Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 8. The left and right are vertical, and the readability needs to be further improved. In addition, the resolution of the pictures in the manuscript is too low, such as the font in Figure 2 and the legend in Figure 7.

7.  Line 487 should be left aligned. Table 1 should use a three-line table. The format of references should also be unified, such as 7, 14, 43, etc. I hope that the author can seriously correct such format errors.

 

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your careful reading, helpful comments, and constructive suggestions, which has significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper attempted to visualize different types of environmental sensing data in digital twin of lakes by using interpolation method, particle method, video fusion method. The Poyang Lake was then taken as a case to demonstrate the visualization framework. The paper described an interesting approach. However, some revision has to be done before this manuscript could be accepted for publication. 

Some comments on the paper.

(1) Line 13: The word “Traditional” is not accurate enough and can be changed to resemble past or present methods of presentation. 

(2) At the end of the summary, the evaluation of the framework and methods should be added，I suggest that the authors refine the abstract more carefully.

 (3) The authors should implicitly state their contributions in the Introduction and Conclusions section. 

(4) Line 52-54: “At present,……” should be moved at the beginning of the paragraph.

 (5) In the second part, the author talked about several data and methods, and I suggest to add more about the significance and necessity of integrating them.

 (6) I suggested that the title of the third part be changed to “A case in Poyang Lake”. 

(7) Section 3.1: Should the title be Poyang Lake Digital Twin System or Scene?

 

(8) Line 400-403: Consider whether it repeats the previous text.

 (9) The authors need to strengthen the theoretical contribution part. The authors pointed out the practical justifications for this study, however, please address more theoretical justification or academic contribution in the Discussion and Conclusions section.

(10) The language should be intensively modified by native speaker.

Author Response

We appreciate it very much for this good suggestion, and we have done it according to your ideas.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This study aims to realize the multi-dimensional and multi-view display of environmental sensing data in the digital twin of lakes. The article is written well. However, as a reviewer, I am suggesting a few modifications to improve the manuscript's overall quality.

1.      There are some abbreviations that are not defined in the manuscript, such as FLV

2.      Suggest including the limitation of this study.

3.      The authors should improve the introduction section by comparing their method with recent related works including 2023 published papers.

 

4.       Could you provide system architecture (tasks and technologies hired for environmental sensing data) based on the digital twin architecture?

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your careful reading, helpful comments, and constructive suggestions, which has significantly improved the presentation of our manuscript. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors propose a Web-based framework for the visualization of environmental sensing data customized on a lake case through the digital twin metaphor.

 

The paper is quite robust, however there are several points where it can be largely improved. Moreover, in some of the sections the presentation is weak.

 

To ease the revision I put here an enumerated list.

 

1. Most of the figures, best examples Figure 1 and Figure 2, are hard to read or because they convey too much information or because they are low res. Sometimes both. In a visualization paper this is not recommended. Please improve the figures and their resolution.

2. I expect a visual abstract of the proposal in the introduction.

3. The concept of digital twin, its facets, and in which way visualization is intertwined with digital twin must be broadly discussed in a separated section, e.g. a rationale. Here, the authors should engage with recent digital twin developments, key literature and they have to present, also through proper images, what are the different facets of digital twin and where visualization is placed in the wide landscape of this research topic. Moreover, this will help to strength the key points of this work. In this section, please consider https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118302 and  https://doi.org/10.3390/app122412741 among the others to frame the research on digital twin.

4. The major contributions of the work must be highlighted in the introduction.

5. Key differences with related works should be put in a Table where it is easier for any reader to grasp the primary benefits of your work.

6. Architecture of the Web tool with all the technologies and communication details should be presented in the appendix of the paper.

7. To ease the reading and the comprehension of the visual metaphors used and the insights derived from your ideas, the visualizations must be first proposed in an abstract mode (like mock-ups) then shown in the real implementation of the Web tool. To get an idea, please refer to  https://doi.org/10.1109/IV53921.2021.00050.

8. Is the Web tool available online? Or is its code available?

9. Limitations of the current work must be discussed as well as limitations of the current Web framework.

10. Future works in the conclusion should be broader.

11. Did authors experiment with end users this tool?

Author Response

We appreciate it very much for this good suggestion, and we have done it according to your ideas.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

It was improved significantly. I suggest it be accepted for publish. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors addressed the whole comments appropriately. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Authors have properly enriched their work, by addressing each comment in a suitable way. The paper turns out to be notably improved.