Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has improved since the last version.

Now the title properly reflects the contents of the research work, as it gives, in my opinion, more importance to the benefits of the use of educational robots than to the need for a methodology in the development of an educational model.

Additionally, the introduction provides a more thoughtful background not only on the benefits of educational robots in the modeling of real logistics systems, but also on the need for a methodology in these developments.

As Section 3 appears to be heavily based on the thesis of the dissertation by Kovalčík (2023), the section or perhaps the article should emphasize the main contributions or improvements against that thesis. In that sense, there should be a section or at least a paragraph at the end of Section 1. Introduction, which is devoted to highlighting the main contributions of this work and depicting the structure of the document. So, the beginning of Section 3 could be lightened.

Section 5 only shows the flow chart of the methodology. It could be completed by giving a short commentary about its general applicability, the difficulties in designing the methodology, or the way it has been designing from the previous one. Possibly, as has been told in Section 4.

In the conclusion section, it would be worth expressing the possibilities of this methodology is of general applicability. It should be noted that the methodology is not mentioned in this section. Also, as the authors express, there are computer-based simulation systems used in industry processes to highlight difficulties in those processes, such as assembly lines. Maybe the authors should insist on the advantages and, why not, the disadvantages of a physical model over a computer model.

Minor issues

The last paragraph of Section 1 ‘In scientific databases, there are several articles …‘ should cite one or two of the articles on the use of educational robots that lack the use of a methodology.

 

The resolution of the figures has also been improved, making them much more readable, but the screen captures in Figures 4 and 6 remain hardly readable. 

Additionally, the introduction provides a more thoughtful background on the benefits of educational robots in the modeling of real logistics systems.

(quizá quitar) Notwithstanding, I encourage the authors to look deeper for more quality publications to support their statements about the use of these models in the training.

Anyway, I would like the article or at least a response from the authors on the different research or improvement that this work makes over the dissertation thesis by Kovalčík (2023) as it is cited several times throughout the article.

Minor issues

The resolution of the figures has also been improved, making them much more readable.

Author Response

Commnets 1: As Section 3 appears to be heavily based on the thesis of the dissertation by Kovalčík (2023), the section or perhaps the article should emphasize the main contributions or improvements against that thesis. In that sense, there should be a section or at least a paragraph at the end of Section 1. Introduction, which is devoted to highlighting the main contributions of this work and depicting the structure of the document. So, the beginning of Section 3 could be lightened.

Response 1: The quote has been edited - Lines 79-82

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commnets 2: Section 5 only shows the flow chart of the methodology. It could be completed by giving a short commentary about its general applicability, the difficulties in designing the methodology, or the way it has been designing from the previous one. Possibly, as has been told in Section 4.

Response 2:  The quote has been edited - Lines 429-432

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commnets 3: In the conclusion section, it would be worth expressing the possibilities of this methodology is of general applicability. It should be noted that the methodology is not mentioned in this section. Also, as the authors express, there are computer-based simulation systems used in industry processes to highlight difficulties in those processes, such as assembly lines. Maybe the authors should insist on the advantages and, why not, the disadvantages of a physical model over a computer model.

Response 3:The quote has been edited - Lines 448-457

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commnets 4: The last paragraph of Section 1 ‘In scientific databases, there are several articles …‘ should cite one or two of the articles on the use of educational robots that lack the use of a methodology.

Response 4:  The quote has been edited - I delleted this paragraph

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commnets 5: The resolution of the figures has also been improved, making them much more readable, but the screen captures in Figures 4 and 6 remain hardly readable. 

Response 5:  The quote has been edited - I made that pictures much bigger and more clearly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commnets 6: Anyway, I would like the article or at least a response from the authors on the different research or improvement that this work makes over the dissertation thesis by Kovalčík (2023) as it is cited several times throughout the article.

Response 6: The use of the methodology described in the article significantly contributed to a more efficient utilization of small-scale physical models in building logistics systems. This is evidenced by several final theses of students who followed the described methodology and managed to create their own autonomous logistics system. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present the possibilities of creating a new methodology for designing logistic systems by applying educational robots or small physical models. A case study has been conducted in a laboratory environment to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework. There are some comments aimed at improving the quality of the paper: 

1.      Figure 5 and Figure 7 be cited in the main text.

2.      For consistency and to ensure a clear presentation, we recommend that the color border of the line in Figure 5 and Figure 7 corresponds to the photograph's color frame. Adding a description for Figures 5 and 7 will further enhance their clarity.

3.      Figure 4 and Figure 6 is not precise. Please re-draw them in a high-resolution way.

4.      Missing quantitative analysis.

 

 

Author Response

Commnets 1 : Figure 5 and Figure 7 be cited in the main text.

Response 1 : The quote has been edited - Lines 238 and 296 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Commnets 2 : For consistency and to ensure a clear presentation, we recommend that the color border of the line in Figure 5 and Figure 7 corresponds to the photograph's color frame. Adding a description for Figures 5 and 7 will further enhance their clarity.

Response 2 : The quote has been edited

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Commnets 3 : Figure 4 and Figure 6 is not precise. Please re-draw them in a high-resolution way.

Response 3 : The quote has been edited

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commnets 4 : Missing quantitative analysis.

Response 4 :  The quote has been edited. Lines 418-433

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 15: are à include

Lines 12-20: please read the text and see how many times you use ‘small-scale physical models’. It is annoying. Reduce this number.

Lines 24-38: your motivation might be true, but is there no reference to literature which can support this? I guess it exists. Look for it.

Line 44: Drop ‘author’ and use [2] after

Line 55: would à will

Line 69-99:I see no point that this text makes part of the paper. It has nothing to do with the topic of the paper. Too general.

Line 118: optimization is necessary

Line 129: I see no Bin1 in the figure (also Bin2 in line 137)

Line 203: I am not sure how it can show the possibilities for optimizing operations. You should explain or leave out this sentence.

Line 210: "Station 1." à “Station 1”.

Line 211: drop ‘of this work’

Line 224: I do not see the point of interest of this figure. First of all, the quality is not good and even not readable but it has a reference to [19] so, what it has to do with this research?

Line 232: I see no program and certainly not ‘line 5’. Do you mean the pictures within Figure 5?

Line 332: developing à developed

Line 342: drop ‘in this chapter’, as it show the paper comes as a chapter from a doctoral or mater thesis.

Line 346, figure 9: first bubble ‘Beginning’: change to ‘Start’

Line 409: ‘The following diagram’ à ‘Figure 10’

Author Response

Thank you for review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

From my point of view, this research is not deep enough or sufficiently justified for the journal level.

It talks about the possibilities of educational robots, but little about the lack of methodology or even the need for a methodology to design or create models of logistics chains based on educational robots.

In this article, the main research objective is not clear. This is the development of a methodology. Instead, in my opinion, too much space is devoted to highlighting the advantages of physical models of industrial robots in teaching.

I find section 2 of excessive length. It could have been resumed in one paragraph to define what a methodology is meant by.

The order of sections should be different, beginning with a literature review in the field of the development of methodologies applied to the design and building of physical models, restricting the research to educational models of industrial robot systems. This review has not been carried out in this document. Once the lack of that methodology was detected, the formal scheme of the methodology could be justified. The designed schema should be justified on the basis of the deficiencies detected. The real case could then be used to emphasize the advantages of the proposed design.

Author Response

Thank you for review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed work aims to provide a method for automating logistic systems using small-scale physical devices. While the proposal is genuine and interesting, it contains several flaws that need to be addressed: the focus of the work is unclear, lacks technical rigor, and the overall organization could be improved. Therefore, I am including some general and specific comments behind my decision to reject the work.

General Comments:

- The proposal is quite original and presents a very interesting approach. I believe the potential applications of the methodology could yield complex information and facilitate scenario assessments. Thus, I would recommend clarifying the application of this approach to the digital twin modeling of building processes, enabling detailed simulations of variations in the models and their impact on actual results. Additionally, introducing a hybrid vision of physical/digital twins could be beneficial.

- Generally, there are too few references. It is critical to justify and extend your explanations by referencing state-of-the-art works. I encourage the authors to include references throughout the manuscript.

- Please provide a state-of-the-art section where similar works are discussed. Clarify the differences between your approach and each of these works.

- Some figures, such as Figures 7, 9, and 10, are not explicitly mentioned in the text. Please ensure that all figures are mentioned before they appear in the article.

Specific Comments:

0. Abstract:

- The structure of the abstract is unclear. It begins with "The subject of the article…" and then shifts to "The main goal of the article…". Consider rewriting the abstract to provide a description of the problem, its importance, your solution, how it operates, and the main results obtained, concluding with the implications of your findings.

- Context about the problem being addressed is missing. Please include a few sentences to provide the reader with context about the issue and its significance.

- No results are mentioned. Please include details about the testing process and the results obtained.

1. Introduction:

- The content provided in the introduction is not reflected in the abstract. The introduction focuses on the impact of educational robots in teaching, whereas the paper aims to provide a method for creating, assessing, and improving logistic systems using small-scale devices. Please focus on one of these aspects and revise accordingly.

- There are too few references, especially in the first paragraph. I strongly recommend adding additional citations.

2. Methods and Methodologies:

- The explanations here are too general regarding the proposed work. Consider condensing this text and integrating it into the introduction.

3. Method:

- This section should clarify the methodology (outlined in Section 4), while any testing prototype of the work should be described and analyzed in a results section. Please adapt the content accordingly.

- The overall clarity of this section is good.

- Please revise the phase bullet points. In their current version, Phases 1 and 2 are difficult to understand. Consider renaming the subsections.

4. Formal Scheme:

- As previously mentioned, please consider moving formal explanations to Section 3 and relocating the current Section 3 content to a results section.

5. Conclusions:

- The conclusion should not include images. Please relocate the diagram to the method section.

- The conclusions are vague. Please provide more detailed findings from the study.

Author Response

Thank you for review.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf