CMC-Computers, Materials & Continua
ISSN:1546-2226
Dear Peng Wang, Huan Yang,
The Round 1 review of your submission ID: 500 titled '=======' to CMC-Computers, Materials & Continua has been completed.
We hope you consider revising your paper to address the valuable comments provided by our reviewers. Your efforts in incorporating their comments will enhance the overall quality of your work.
To proceed with the revision process, we kindly request that you revise the manuscript and upload the following revised files by 2024-04-18.
1. Your rebuttal letter addressing the reviewers' comments.
2. A revised version of your manuscript with tracked changes.
3. A clean version of your revised manuscript, free of any tracked changes.
Please check the reviewer's comments appended at the end of this message. To submit your revised manuscript and accompanying documents, kindly log into the manuscript system and locate the designated panel for Revisions. Within this section, you can easily upload your revised manuscript files.
Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at . We are here to provide any necessary guidance throughout the revision process.
Sincerely,
CMC-Computers, Materials & Continua
2450 St. Rose Parkway, Suite 120, Henderson, Nevada, 074, USA
Home Page: https://techscience.com/journal/cmc
Paper Submission: https://ijs.tspsubmission.com/homepage
Email:
Reviewer 1
The research in general appears comprehensive in terms of method and results obtained. Overall, I believe a complete revision of the English is necessary, perhaps using a proofreading service, to improve readability. There are often extremely complex passages in terms of sentence formulation, and improvement in this regard could enhance understanding of the content. Additionally, I also highlight the following aspects that need revision before considering the research suitable for a journal publication:
I believe that section 2 (but also section 1) needs revision to improve comprehensibility, both in terms of English and structure. Many (perhaps too many) of the citations refer to previous works by the same authors, raising serious doubts about the method used to conduct the literature analysis. Furthermore, some parts of this literature review (as well as subsequent chapters) appear more as a list of citations without an actual analysis of the referenced works. This raises doubts about whether there is an attempt to increase the number of references.
Additionally, how was the order of execution of the 2 tests handled? Was it randomized or was it always kept the same (always ATI first and then AAS or vice versa)?
Another critical element of the analysis concerns the choice of metrics:
-
-
-
Lastly, I suggest improving the overall quality of the images. There is a lack of an effective representation of the experimental setup while two people are taking the test, some figures of the results (10 and 11) can be omitted since the respective tables are already present, standard deviations are missing in the graphs of figures 12 and 13, and figure 15 can be omitted as it is a pie chart with only two slices.
Lastly, I suggest improving the overall quality of the images. There is a lack of an effective representation of the experimental setup while two people are taking the test, some figures of the results (10 and 11) can be omitted since the respective tables are already present, standard deviations are missing in the graphs of figures 12 and 13, and figure 15 can be omitted as it is a pie chart with only two slices.
Reviewer 2
The authors presented a theoritical framework with experimental validation on diverse products demonstrates the method's effectiveness in handling structural and functional variations. There are several elements of the paper that need to be strengthened before it can be accepted for publication. I would request the authors to address these elements and submit a revised version of the manuscript.
The below are suggested for further consideration.
1.
2. Please refer to the recent literature on the assembly and disassembly assistance by various modes. Please refer : Augmented reality-based guidance in product assembly and maintenance/repair perspective; Augmented reality aided object mapping for worker assistance/training in an industrial assembly context; Augmented reality guided autonomous assembly system.
3. In the introduction, several papers are cited(bulk citation) at single statements without detailed discussions. It is suggested to give clear justification and its significance for all references with regard to the context of proposed framework.
4. Provide a clear notes/description about figure 1 (sub figures) and the context.
5. List the number of assumptions followed in the framework.
6. Please improve the quality of the figure 2., Number the equations in section 3.2
7. With regard to the performance of the proposed work, please do the comparative assessment with regard to the recent relevant literature.
8. Section 6, Please improve the future directions.