Digital Twin Used in Real-Time Monitoring of Operations Performed on CNC Technological Equipment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRemark
1. The abstract is too general. This is more of an introduction. It should describe the authors' research and their results, including in numerical terms.
2. Chapter 1 is too long (2 pages). Chapter 1 should be shortened to 1 page. It should only contain the relevance of the research, a formulated goal and objectives of the research, and information about how the research relates to the subject of the journal. Well-known information should be removed.
3. Chapter 2 is too long (5 pages). Chapter 2 should be shortened to 2 pages. Well-known information should be removed. This should not be a review article.
4. Part of the well-known material from section 3 should be transferred to section 2.
5. Figures 5, 8 and 10 are not readable (font size is too small). It is impossible to evaluate and understand them. Almost all figures are of poor quality.
6. Figures 6-7 are not informative - this is common knowledge. There must delete.
7. Figures 11-18 must be removed. It is better to replace them with algorithm pseudocode and formulas. The articles do not provide the program chests - it is not an instruction and not a textbook for students. In addition, some of them are unreadable (the font size is too small).
8. Figures 19-21 should be taken away - this is well-known information.
9. If the result is a description of the developed system, then it is not a scientific article, but an engineering one (instructions on the development of similar systems). The article should be supplemented by analyzing the reliability and accuracy of the functioning of the developed system (the results should be presented in numbers and diagrams).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your expertise on our manuscript. Below you can find the response to your comments.
Comments 1: The abstract is too general. This is more of an introduction. It should describe the authors' research and their results, including in numerical terms.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We've updated the abstract according to your suggestion. The change can be founded at Page 1, Lines 15 - 28 and is highlighted in red.
Comments 2: Chapter 1 is too long (2 pages). Chapter 1 should be shortened to 1 page. It should only contain the relevance of the research, a formulated goal and objectives of the research, and information about how the research relates to the subject of the journal. Well-known information should be removed.
Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, modified the content from Chapter 1 in order to short the pages, remove well-known information and contain the relevance of the research. The changes can be founded at Pages 1 - 3, Lines 34 - 99 and highlighted in red.
Comments 3: Chapter 2 is too long (5 pages). Chapter 2 should be shortened to 2 pages. Well-known information should be removed. This should not be a review article.
Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly, modified the content from Chapter 1 in order to short the pages and a part of removed well-known information We kept a part of well-known information in order to see the history, importance and future predicted for our research topic. The changes can be founded at Pages 3 - 5, Lines 102 - 176 and highlighted in red.
Comments 4: Part of the well-known material from section 3 should be transferred to section 2.
Response 4: Agree. We have, accordingly, moved and shorted the well-known material from section 3 to section 2. The changes can be founded at Pages 5 - 6, Lines 178 - 212 and highlighted in red.
Comments 5: Figures 5, 8 and 10 are not readable (font size is too small). It is impossible to evaluate and understand them. Almost all figures are of poor quality.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We've replaced all the figures in order to can be clearly visible.
Comments 6: Figures 6-7 are not informative - this is common knowledge. There must delete.
Response 6: We agree with Figure 6 which was moved on another section with application on that specific topic, you can find it on Figure 10. But the Figure 7 which now is Figure 6 in the manuscript we kept this because this schema we apply in our software architecture and is designed for our research.
Comments 7: Figures 11-18 must be removed. It is better to replace them with algorithm pseudocode and formulas. The articles do not provide the program chests - it is not an instruction and not a textbook for students. In addition, some of them are unreadable (the font size is too small).
Response 7: Agree. We have, accordingly, changed all the Figures from 11 to 18 with Pseudocode or Block Diagrams for that related code. Also, for content related to Figure 12 and Figure 14 we've added the formula's that we've used in the research. The Figures from 11 to 18 changed are highlighted in red also the text added at Page 13, Lines 427 - 449; Page 15, Lines 465 - 471 is highlighted in red.
Comments 8: Figures 19-21 should be taken away - this is well-known information.
Response 8: Agree, but we've kept the Figure 20, which now is Figure 19 because this is relevant in our results of the research and we had another review for this section in order to be detailed a little bit. So we've also added the text from Lines 518 - 528.
Comments 9: If the result is a description of the developed system, then it is not a scientific article, but an engineering one (instructions on the development of similar systems). The article should be supplemented by analyzing the reliability and accuracy of the functioning of the developed system (the results should be presented in numbers and diagrams).
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We've revised the Chapter 5 and we've added the Section 5.4, which contains performance analysis on specific cases. Also here can be founded a comparative analysis of current software with other similar ones in order to point out the uniqueness and advantages of the proposed scheme. The changes can be founded at Pages 19 - 22, Lines 574 - 621. Also the Conclusions Section was revised in order to be according to the results revised. All the changes are highlighted in red.
Attached the revised manuscript.
Best Regards,
Ms. Florina Pop
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis research introduces a real-time monitoring software designed for CNC machines, leveraging Digital Twin (DT) technology to guarantee uninterrupted data synchronization and performance monitoring via an SQL database and .NET interface. This solution is in line with Industry 4.0 and 5.0 advancements, improving machine maintenance and minimizing downtime through automation processes.
The article has the following points that need to be improved:
1. The quality of the illustrations in this paper needs to be improved, especially in Figure 10, where the images are blurred and the characters in the pictures are difficult to recognize. Please modify and ensure that the text in all images is clearly visible.
2. Figure 2 in the article is not closely related to its corresponding description content. It is suggested that the author carefully check and consider whether it needs to be modified to ensure the consistency and coherence of the content between the figure and the text.
3. For Figure 11 to Figure 18, it is suggested that the author make appropriate clipping and only keep the key parts of the code, so as to better highlight the core content and focus of the article.
4. In Section 4.5 of the article, the description of model integration, simulation and continuous improvement process is relatively brief. The author is requested to provide a more detailed introduction in this part, including the specific steps, methods and technical means adopted.
5. The results section of the paper is relatively brief, only showing the effects achieved, but lacking in-depth analysis of performance and discussion of specific cases. It is suggested that the author add the content of performance analysis in the results section, such as the evaluation of the response time, accuracy and other indicators of the software solution, and use specific cases for analysis and illustration. In addition, the introduction part of the paper mentions some digital twin solutions that currently exist in the field of industrial manufacturing, and the authors can consider a comparative analysis in the results section to highlight the uniqueness and advantages of the proposed scheme in this paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your expertise on our manuscript. Below you can find the response to your comments.
Comments 1: The quality of the illustrations in this paper needs to be improved, especially in Figure 10, where the images are blurred and the characters in the pictures are difficult to recognize. Please modify and ensure that the text in all images is clearly visible.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The Figure 10 and all the figures have been updated in order to be more clearly visible. The Figure 10 is now Figure 9 in the document because we had another comment from another reviewer to be removed some of figures.
Comments 2: Figure 2 in the article is not closely related to its corresponding description content. It is suggested that the author carefully check and consider whether it needs to be modified to ensure the consistency and coherence of the content between the figure and the text.
Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, modified the content, The change can be found at Page 4, Lines 134 - 144.
Comments 3: For Figure 11 to Figure 18, it is suggested that the author make appropriate clipping and only keep the key parts of the code, so as to better highlight the core content and focus of the article.
Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly, changed all the Figures from 11 to 18 with Pseudocode or Block Diagrams for that related code. Also, for content related to Figure 12 and Figure 14 we've added the formula's that we've used in the research. The Figures from 11 to 18 changed are highlighted in red also the text added at Page 13, Lines 427 - 449; Page 15, Lines 465 - 471 is highlighted in red.
Comments 4: In Section 4.5 of the article, the description of model integration, simulation and continuous improvement process is relatively brief. The author is requested to provide a more detailed introduction in this part, including the specific steps, methods and technical means adopted.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We've revised this part and we've added the text from Page 17, Lines 518 - 528 which is highlighted in red.
Comments 5: The results section of the paper is relatively brief, only showing the effects achieved, but lacking in-depth analysis of performance and discussion of specific cases. It is suggested that the author add the content of performance analysis in the results section, such as the evaluation of the response time, accuracy and other indicators of the software solution, and use specific cases for analysis and illustration. In addition, the introduction part of the paper mentions some digital twin solutions that currently exist in the field of industrial manufacturing, and the authors can consider a comparative analysis in the results section to highlight the uniqueness and advantages of the proposed scheme in this paper.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We've revised the Chapter 5 and we've added the Section 5.4, which contains performance analysis on specific cases. Also here can be founded a comparative analysis of current software with other similar ones in order to point out the uniqueness and advantages of the proposed scheme. The changes can be founded at Pages 19 - 22, Lines 574 - 621. Also the Conclusions Section was revised in order to be according to the results revised. All the changes are highlighted in red.
Attached the revised manuscript.
Best Regards,
Ms. Florina Pop
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript, we are happy to see that the manuscript is closer to your requests. I hope that we understand right that the manuscript is accepted by you in current version.
If not please let us know that is needed to be done.
Thank you!
Best Regards,
Ms. Florina Pop
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the second review, I am pleased to see that the author has given a comprehensive and detailed answer to the questions raised before, and the revision work is quite well done. However, after reviewing the revised draft, I found that there are still some small problems that need to be fine-tuned, and I hope the author can further improve them. The problems are as follows:
1.The data in Figure 2 is not mentioned in the body, such as "61.3%", and the icon is inscribed with an expectation for 2023-2028, but the bar chart only contains data for 2022-2024, so I think the chart is not very useful.
2.Can the author beautify the newly added figures 22 to 24? The content contained in the picture is not very much, you do not need to put such a large picture.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript, we are happy to see that the manuscript is closer to your requests. Below you can find the response to your last comments.
Comments 1: The data in Figure 2 is not mentioned in the body, such as "61.3%", and the icon is inscribed with an expectation for 2023-2028, but the bar chart only contains data for 2022-2024, so I think the chart is not very useful.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The figure and the description text have been updated in order that the context to really fit with the figure. You will find the changes at Page 4, Lines 134 - 141.
Comments 2: Can the author beautify the newly added figures 22 to 24? The content contained in the picture is not very much, you do not need to put such a large picture.
Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, modified the Figures 22 to 24 to be smaller and we changed how the charts look.
Attached the revised manuscript.
Best Regards,
Ms. Florina Pop
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
