A Comprehensive Review of the Research of the “Eye–Brain–Hand” Harvesting System in Smart Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

See my review for some suggested changes.

Author Response

First of all, thank you very much for your valuable advice. I feel honored to receive such meticulous and specific advice. Secondly, in response to your suggestion, I have made the following changes to the manuscript for your reference.

 

Recommendation 1: Line 47, replace “harvesting system” with “harvesting systems”.

Reply: Modified (line48).

Recommendation 2: Line 79, The outline of the paper is Figure 3 not Figure 4. I cannot find a callout of Figure 1 in the text. The figure outlining the article should be Figure 2 and included in the text after its callout in line 79.

Reply: The position of the outline has been adjusted and named as Figure 2(line 111). Figure 1 has been defined in the main text (line 44), and image definition errors have been checked elsewhere in the main text.

Recommendation 3: Line 93, delete “in the first place”.

Reply: Modified (line 128).

Recommendation 4: Line 106, replace “hand eye” with hand-eye.

Reply: Modified (line 114).

Recommendation 5: Lines 116 and 117, It is no clear how a “Time of Flight (TOF) principle” is used in connection with a Kinect V2 camera to obtain the indicated results.

Reply: A brief description was given of the application of TOF principle in Kinect V2 camera(line138)

Recommendation 6: Line 146, replace “extent,” with “extent.”

Reply: Modified (line 170).

Recommendation 7: Line 246, delete “in addition to”.

Reply: Under the premise of ensuring the same sentence meaning, the language errors have been modified (line 274).

Recommendation 8: Line 272, replace OTUS with Otus for consistency.

Reply: Modified (line 301).

Recommendation 9: Line 334-335, define abbreviation LS-SVM on its first use in lines 185-186 not here.

Reply: LS-SVM has been first defined on line 214 (formerly line 185-186), and is not being redefined on line 363 (formerly 334-335).

Recommendation 10: Line 373, replace Figure 6 with Figure 4. Increase the font size of text on graph.

Reply: The incorrect figure definition has been modified. Due to the tabulation of the original Figure 2, the original Figure 4 has been changed to Figure 3 (line 400), and the size of the text in the image has been adjusted.

Recommendation 11: Line 377, Delete “And” and capitalize a in as at the beginning of line 378.

Reply: Modified (line 404).

Recommendation 12: Line 555, replace “them” with “Lin et al.”.

Reply: Modified (line 581).

Recommendation 13: Line 692, add [67] after Xiong et al.

Reply: Because this sentence is a general description of the research conducted by Xiong et al. during three periods, [67,91, 56] was added after Xiong et al (line 718).

Recommendation 14: Line 845, add “s” to end-effector.

Reply: Modified (line 870).

Recommendation 15: Line 1009, add a space after [63].

Reply: Modified (line 1034).

Recommendation 16: Line 1053, add a space after [104].

Reply: Modified (line 1077).

Recommendation 17: Text following the caption of Figure 9, putting reference numbers in a figure caption, and omitting them from the text that discusses the figure is not standard practice. I recommend adding numbers to the citations in the text.

Reply: Added citation numbers after referring to the author information of Figure 9 (now Figure 8) in the article (line 1096-1038).

 

The revised content and relevant identification have been marked in yellow in the attached document. Please review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I am normally quite critical about review papers, but in this case I must admit the quality of the manuscript is quite high, and the authors have spent a good effort in order produce an original contribution. 

So just some moderate revision: 

1) The papere structure follow the order "eye", "brain" and "hand", for this reason I would change accordingly the title, considering the same order of the terms. 

2) I would spend more efforts to explain actual limitations (e.g. digitization footprint or mobility in field environments)

3) I would spend more efforts to try to give some outlook for future research or expected results

4) Figure 2 would have been more readable using a table representation

5) Please enhance readability of figures when the size of the fonts within figures is too small. 

 

 

English language is fine

Author Response

First of all, thank you very much for your valuable advice. I feel very honored to receive your overall affirmation of the article. Secondly, in response to your suggestion, I have made the following changes to the manuscript for your reference.

Recommendation 1: The paper structure follow the order "eye", "brain" and "hand", for this reason I would change accordingly the title, considering the same order of the terms.

Reply: The “hand-eye-brain”in the title has been changed to“eye-brain-hand”based on the distribution order of the main content of the article, and corresponding adjustments have been made to the relevant content in the main text（line 1, line15, line 23, line 71,line 76）.

Recommendation 2: I would spend more efforts to explain actual limitations (e.g. digitization footprint or mobility in field environments)

Reply: We have made modifications and additions to the challenges in section 5 based on your suggestions (line1225-1241, line1251-1271).

Recommendation 3: I would spend more efforts to try to give some outlook for future research or expected results

Reply: Based on your suggestion, we have supplemented and adjusted the outlook in section 5(line 1283-1350).

Recommendation 4: Figure 2 would have been more readable using a table representation

Reply: The original Figure 2 has been organized into the current Table 1(line 192).

Recommendation 5: Please enhance readability of figures when the size of the fonts within figures is too small. 

Reply: The original images with smaller text have been re-edited to enhance their readability, as shown in Figures 4 (line 478) and Figures 5 (line 560).

 

The revised content and relevant identification have been marked in blue in the attached document. Please review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper entitled “A Comprehensive Review on the Research of the Hand-Eye-Brain Harvesting System in Smart Agriculture”, presents a comprehensive review of international research advancements in the 'hand-eye-brain' harvesting systems within the context of smart agriculture, encompassing aspects of mechanical hand devices, visual recognition systems, and intelligent decision-making systems.

As it appears from studying the paper, its context is quite interesting and addresses to the readership of the Journal. The authors indeed provide a comprehensive review regarding the subjects under investigation citing a high number of up-to-date and relevant references. 

Some issues in which the authors should put a little more effort are as follows:

1.       Although the contents of this review are quite interesting, the need for this research is not strongly justified. The authors should attend this issue by elaborating the motivation for this research and substantiate its contribution to knowledge in the introduction section.

2.       The qualitative and/or quantitative criteria regarding the methodology followed in this review are not specified. This issue should be clarified.

3.       Section 5 does not summarize the conclusions of the research, as stated in the introduction. Apart from the points referring to the Challenges and Prospects, it is important in the conclusions section the findings of the review and their implications to be discussed in the broadest context possible as an answer to the research question.

4.       The paper is written in adequate English, however minor spelling and grammar checking might be of need.

Minor checks regarding English are required.

Author Response

First of all, thank you very much for your valuable advice. I feel honored to receive your overall affirmation of the article. Secondly, in response to your suggestion, I have made the following changes to the article for your reference.

Recommendation 1: Although the contents of this review are quite interesting, the need for this research is not strongly justified. The authors should attend this issue by elaborating the motivation for this research and substantiate its contribution to knowledge in the introduction section.

Reply: Based on your suggestion, we have supplemented the necessity and contribution of this study in the introduction (line 33-35, line 80-95).

Recommendation 2: The qualitative and/or quantitative criteria regarding the methodology followed in this review are not specified. This issue should be clarified.

Reply: We have provided a supplementary description in the introduction regarding the basis for dividing the structure of the article and the narrative methods used in each section (line 95-100).

Recommendation 3: Section 5 does not summarize the conclusions of the research, as stated in the introduction. Apart from the points referring to the Challenges and Prospects, it is important in the conclusions section the findings of the review and their implications to be discussed in the broadest context possible as an answer to the research question.

Reply: Based on your valuable suggestions, we have added the conclusion section as the sixth part of the article. Corresponding to the introduction section, we have described the significance of this study and its potential future contributions to relevant fields in the conclusion section (line 1361-1400).

Recommendation 4: The paper is written in adequate English, however minor spelling and grammar checking might be of need.

Reply: Checked and corrected grammar and spelling errors in the article (line 356, line 410, line 523, line 525, line 751, table 7(d) “chrysanthemum”).

 

The revised content and relevant identification have been marked in green in the attached document. Please review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf