PONE-D-24-05665A New Automatic Sugarcane Seed Cutting Machine Based on Internet of Things TechnologyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mbadjoun Wapet,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 12 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sathishkumar Veerappampalayam Easwaramoorthy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data are within the manuscript."

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled “A New Automatic Sugarcane Seed Cutting Machine Based on Internet of Things Technology” includes the design of a new automatic sugarcane seed cutting machine consisting of a feeding system, a node scanning and detection system, a node cutting system, a sugarcane seed counting and monitoring system, and a control system.

The design of the sugarcane seed-cutting machine is an important and interesting contribution to increasing the effectiveness and performance of the planting of sugarcane. Therefore, it is valuable scientific research that deserves to be published in a reputable international scientific journal.

MS is enjoyable, informative, and easy to understand. It contains potentially useful information for readers. All sections of MS are well organized and presented.

Following the general assessments mentioned earlier, you will find additional minor improvements listed below:

The abstract should begin with a short sentence emphasizing the importance of the topic.

The first paragraph of the Materials and Methods appears to be more suitable for the Introduction section. Please consider revising the placement for better coherence. In the second paragraph, include relevant citations to support the details provided. This will enhance the credibility of the research.

Address the lack of information on the statistical foundation of the paper. Clearly outline the statistical methods employed in the study to strengthen the research.

I couldnt find the relation of the study with Internet of Things Technology. Therefore title should be revised.

P.S. Writing a review report for a manuscript lacking line numbers poses challenges, making it difficult to provide specific feedback. Therefore, I recommend authors include line numbers before submitting to any journal.

Reviewer #2: The pulse widths (PW) of three color channels (Red-R, Green-G, and Blue-B) of the sensors under the laboratory conditions have been proposed in this study. The IoT and RGB color sensors are possible to get the analytical indicators similar to those achieved with other automatic systems for cutting sugar cane seeds without requiring using computers. This study is interesting however there are some drawbacks that the authors should address them to improve this study.

1.In the introduction, the contributions of this study must be provided clearly especially the proposed methods comparing with the existing studies.

2.At item 2.3, the authors stated that “The operational procedure for cutting sugarcane seeds is displayed in Figure 4.” This statement is inaccurate to describe this content.

3.In table 2, the authors compared with other technologies, based on the certain values, this technology is not benefit than previous technologies.

4.The scientific basis of combined methods between the internet of things (IoTs) and RGB sensors must be provided.

5.Its significance of this study is inadequate in the novelty methods.

6.The limitation of this study is not provided as well as its application in the food manufacturing

Reviewer #3: Below are my comments that may help the authors further improve their manuscript titled "A New Automatic Sugarcane Seed Cutting Machine Based on Internet of Things Technology":

1. Numbering the manuscript's lines would be better to facilitate the review process. Please consider this comment in the revised version.

2. Please revise the affiliation numbers for all authors.

3. P.3 L.17: Please replace Xiao et al. [29] with Xiao and Xu [29] because there are only two authors.

4. Please revise the numbers of figures (i.e., Figure 1 is iterated). Please address this comment and ensure the figures numbers are consistent with the manuscript's text.

5. Figure 3: Please revise and correct all dimensions in mm! I think you mean that all dimensions in cm.

6. The authors should follow the journal's guidelines in writing the headings (i.e., some headings are written capitalize each word and bold, and others do not). Please consider this comment throughout the manuscript's text.

7. Figure 7 is iterated; please revise it and ensure the figure numbers are cited correctly within the manuscript's text.

8. The authors should cite the equations' numbers within the manuscript's text. Please address this comment for all equations.

9. P.12 L.14: Please be uniform in writing the unit of lux throughout the manuscript's text.

10. P.12 L.16: Please revise and replace the literature review Brosnan et al. [41] with Brosnan et al. [42] as cited in the references list.

11. P12 L.32: Please revise the word dimeter throughout the manuscript's text.

12. P.13: Please revise the title of heading 3.2.2.

13. P.19, 20 L.3, 11: Please revise the literature review's authors with the one cited in the references list.

14. P.20 L.6: Please revise the value of the vertical distance of 1.0 cm.

15. What about the limitations of this study? The authors should mention the study's limitations within the manuscript's text. Please consider this comment.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Davut Karayel

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Mahmoud Okasha

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: ID PONE-D-24-05665 Reviewer.doc

A New Automatic Sugarcane Seed Cutting Machine Based on Internet of Things Technology and RGB color sensor

PONE-D-24-05665R1

Dear Dr. Mbadjoun Wapet,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sathishkumar Veerappampalayam Easwaramoorthy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I appreciate the authors addressing the proposed changes and responding to comments. I believe the revised manuscript is now ready for publication.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Davut Karayel

Reviewer #3: Yes: Mahmoud Okasha

**********