رفع کامنت های مقاله

شرح پروژه

کامنت اول: 

The manuscript deals with a practical problem - the use of a tiltrotor quadcopter for inspecting high transition towers and conveyor structures in a steel plant under wind disturbance. The topic fits within the automation and UAV control scope, but the paper is not yet ready for publication without major revisions.

The introduction explains the on steel-plant inspection hazards, UAV use, tiltrotor quadcopters, and gain-scheduling control. However, the background is not sufficiently deep because it does not clearly divide the inspection problem, the aerodynamic control problem, and the claimed novelty of applying the GSC-PID. Several parts of the introduction are not well referenced, i.e. recent work on UAV inspection in heavy industry, wind modelling for low-altitude industrial environments, robust/adaptive control for tiltrotor UAVs, path tracking under disturbances, and validation of visual inspection quality. The literature review seems to be selective and is sometimes used only to support broad statements rather than to define the exact research gap. 

The research design seems to be appropriate. However, the simulation itself is too limited to support the manuscript's strongest claims, because it lacks an experimental flight test, hardware-in-the-loop validation, sensitivity analysis, and a comparison with a baseline PID controller under identical wind inputs. The authors' team's assumption that only the pitch angle is affected while roll and yaw remain constant is questionable. The wind scenario is also weakly defined because average data from Open-Meteo are converted into a few force steps without a transparent derivation, a units check, an altitude correction, a turbulence model, or an uncertainty range. 

The methods should be better described to ensure reproducibility. Parameters which are essential - such as mass, inertia, rotor geometry, servo limits, actuator dynamics, drag coefficients, sampling time, sensor assumptions, and controller implementation details are either missing or insufficiently specified. The gain-scheduling procedure is described at a conceptual level, but the actual scheduling variables, operating points, interpolation law, gain values, autotuning settings, and stability margins are not reported clearly. The use of K-nearest neighbours to find equilibrium or optimal operating points is insufficiently justified, and Table 3 does not explain how MSE values relate physically to stable operating points. 

Several equations and symbols are inconsistent. The apparent-wind notation, the state vector dimensions, the PID integral term, and the controllability and observability matrices should be revised. The obstacle-avoidance and reinforcement-learning components appear incomplete and somewhat separate from the main controller's contribution. If reinforcement learning is claimed, the authors need to specify the algorithm, training process, state and action spaces, reward function, episodes, convergence behaviour, and validation results; otherwise, this section should be removed or reframed as a conceptual block. 

The results are presented logically using a list of figures, but they are not sufficiently clear or quantitative. The graphs have limited explanatory value because axes, units, scales, legends, numerical performance indices, and error bands are often missing or hard to read. 

The statement that disturbances are fully suppressed is very optimistic because the figures still show transients, and no numerical criterion is given for "fully suppressed", "robust", or "zero chattering". The comparison table compares studies which use different platforms, time frames, scenarios, and disturbance assumptions. 

The conclusions are not fully backed by results. The presented simulation results somehow support the narrower conclusion that the proposed GSC-PID configuration can stabilise the simulated pitch response for the defined step-like wind scenario. However, they do not support claims about guaranteed robustness, real inspection readiness, complete resistance to wind disturbances, or high-quality image capture - because these outcomes were not experimentally measured. 

The English is generally OK, but it requires considerable editing and polishing before publication (awkward phrasing, repeated statements, overclaiming words such as "guarantees", inconsistent terminology such as "tiltrotor" and "tilt rotor", incomplete captions, and sentences that blur methods, results, and conclusions). 

The reference list needs revision, too. Some of the entries are not formatted in accordance with MDPI requirements. 

From the formal point of view, the article is well written, of adequate length, self-explanatory, logically divided and readable with ordinary effort.

Suggestions for authors:

    Strengthen the results with numerical metrics, baseline comparisons, sensitivity tests, and preferably hardware-in-the-loop or real-flight validation; 
    Rewrite the introduction and conclusion to point out the novelty.
    Reduce unsupported claims.

Submission Date
29 May 2026
Date of this review
11 Jun 2026 14:07:33

کامنت دوم: 

The manuscript addresses an interesting application of tiltrotor UAVs for inspection tasks in steel plants. However, the current version suffers from substantial scientific and methodological deficiencies that prevent proper assessment of the proposed approach. The manuscript lacks sufficient novelty, rigorous modeling, and experimental validation. The major concerns are detailed below:
1. Insufficient and Weak Literature Review
The literature review is superficial and does not adequately position the proposed work within the state of the art. The authors do not clearly identify the scientific gap that motivates the proposed study. Several recent and highly relevant works on tiltrotor UAV dynamics, aerodynamic modeling, disturbance rejection, gain scheduling, robust control, adaptive control, and wind estimation are not discussed. The manuscript repeatedly claims novelty based on the application domain (steel industry inspection), while novelty should primarily arise from methodological contributions rather than a specific industrial scenario. Consequently, the novelty of the manuscript remains unclear.
2. Lack of Physical Description of the Vehicle
One of the most significant shortcomings is the absence of a detailed description of the tiltrotor platform. The manuscript does not provide: vehicle dimensions, mass properties, moments of inertia, rotor characteristics, propeller specifications, servo actuator properties, aerodynamic coefficients, thrust models, mechanical layout of the tiltrotor system. Without these parameters, the presented mathematical model cannot be independently verified or reproduced.
3. Inadequate Aerodynamic Modeling
The central claim of the paper concerns operation under wind disturbances; however, the aerodynamic modeling is highly simplified. The manuscript does not include: aerodynamic force and moment models, drag coefficient identification, rotor–wind interaction effects, CFD simulations, wind tunnel measurements, experimental aerodynamic characterization.
4. Simulation-Only Validation
The manuscript contains only simulation results. There is no: experimental validation, hardware implementation, flight testing, comparison against real measurements, validation of the disturbance model. As a consequence, the conclusions regarding robustness against wind disturbances cannot be supported.

The topic is potentially relevant for industrial UAV inspection; however, the manuscript currently lacks the scientific rigor required for publication.

مهارت ها و تخصص های مورد نیاز

درباره کارفرما

کاربر760483

عضویت یک ماه پیش

3 پروژه ثبت شده ،

0 پروژه در حال انجام ،

1 پروژه آماده دریافت پیشنهاد ،

نرخ پذیرش پیشنهاد 0%