Emerging Research Topics in Drone Healthcare Delivery

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor.

Thank you for inviting me to review of the paper 'Emerging research areas in drone healthcare delivery.'

 

The topic of this study is a very interesting and important subject in future UAV research. The authors have invested substantial work to contribute to this topic. There is definitely substance in this paper that deserve publication, but as I see it, there are several critical limitations of the paper that reduces its potential. I believe much of this may be compensated for.

 

THE HEADLINE

The headline is so far okey, but research areas suggested to be 'emerging' have been there for a long time. I actually consider several of the topics the authors focus on as completely 'missed but well known' topics in the research so far, not as new ones emerging. I do not ask for another headline, but I think the headline would have been more inspiring if the authors add similar dimension as they have stated in line 204; the purpose is to provide a guide for future areas of investigation and cooperation.

 The methodology

The literature review seems to have been conducted in a clear way, although I am surprised that they ended up with only including 179 articles 'qualified'. I know most of the papers in their supplemental file, and both there, and in other sources not included, there are substantial literature that could have been included. This is a limitation of the study.

 

Regarding the 'topic modeling process'. I have been working with that method but I have no extensive experience the 'Latent Dirichlet Allocation'. However, but the authors have described this part of their methodology in sufficient details to enable reproduction of their findings.

 

Some basic terms - Economy.

The authors apply multiple terms related to economy and effectiveness. They should use a stricter terminology of what they mean by efficiency, effectiveness, and cost-efficiency.

 

As an example, they state that 'emerging aviation technologies have been shown to improve the timelines and efficiency of health project transport'. I assume they do not mean cost-efficient, for that has until now not been documented in a proper way as I see it.

I therefore think it would be useful to state what they mean related to various economy topics during their presentation and discussion.

I will also add that economic sustainability of UAVs in health services will have to be exposed to standard efficiency theory. We should realize any that new treatment or technical device introduced to current health systems will have to be assessed in a value-based economic assessment (cost/benefit), as introducing a new solution of treatment modus must be balanced against other new solutions because they may exclude each other within the restricted economic resources available. I consider this as an important recognition.

 

SUITABILITY OF THE METHODOLY.

My main concern is the outcome of the application of their methodology and how the authors  are  using and interpreting their findings. From the 179 articles qualified, they usually present only one cited article for each of their statements. Some of these citati

I will give a couple of examples. In lines 272-275 they state that 'The topic ‘Cost Effectiveness’ scrutinized the economic viability of integrating UAVs into healthcare supply chains [29]. This research conducted comparative economic analyses between UAV implementations and traditional healthcare supply chain methods, assessing the cost implications and potential increases in efficiency.'

 This paper they have cited was from a use-case in Madagascar, related to a very specific setting, region and purpose. The study compared UAVs to existing transport solutions which probably is only relevant for the studied system where traditional transport systems may be non-existing for periods of times and little efficient when functioning. This cited study is neither a proof for, nor a proof against, UAVs. The study was conducted several years ago and the framework of this study does not allow extension to order models.

 

However, there other papers who have studied economy in real studies, most of them in similar developing systems as Madagascar but also studies of real-life economy in other regions. This is not included in the presentations.

 

With respect to the topic 'defibrillator deployment', the authors state that this topic feature prominently in the literature but that the major body of research so far have consisted of simulations. But there are also several studies of real-life projects comparing real life ambulance and draw transport. The authors presentation ends up a little 'one-eyed'. To spark ideas for future research avenues, they would need to include and elaborate on more of the articles.

 There are more examples throughout the article.

 

Limitations of the study.

 

A section of 'Limitations of the study' is a must in this this paper.

One serious limitation is the scarce reference use of the articles they actually have qualified.

 

Another is the method they use to qualify the sited papers and make their associations. What are the pitfalls of the methodology? They obviously have missed essential research papers.

 

A third limitation is the fact that there is a lot of literature that in part fill in some of the gaps the authors suggest, but this literature has not been included by the authors. I have read more than two thousand papers on UAVs in health care published after 2021. There is a lot of knowledge out there, but I conclude similarly to the authors; there are still large gaps in the research. The authors should elaborate on such perspectives.

 

Furthermore, the authors used articles until 2022. Several of their topics have been studied during the period after 2022 and until today. Actually, I find the research on UAVs to be extremely accelerating and that several papers published only a year or two ago are outdated,   particularly related to regulations which finally is coming into place now with increasing pace. Although this makes it rather challenging to stay 'ahead' of the research, there are large gaps to propose for future emerging topics. This has not been covered by the current article.

 

The 'Conclusion' in the paper.

 

As I observe the current Conclusion it has a very limited value. It should much more firmly state what are the findings of missing topics/connections/combinations of the current research. Then based on this, propose what are the crucial future research demands.

The authors vaguely indicate the need for research to explore differing research topics across different dimensions. I would like to hear their opinion about research of varying topics in different systems and regions, i.e., urban/rural, developed/developing systems.

 

The authors state that more studies are required to study the impact of UAV medical item delivery on patient outcomes. What do they mean with outcomes? Access to services? Survival? Healthiness?

 

I fully support the authors that the research into broad based benefits is still in its infancy. To exaggerate a bit, I would say some topics are only at a fetal stadium.  As the Conclusion stands now, it did not tell me much new. The authors should have the ambition to improve that because they have the needed platform to do it.

 

Author Response

AUTHORS We thank the reviewer for this response. This review came in a week after we had already been informed of the decision by the journal, so were not expecting this additional review. However, we found the review highly valuable. We thank the reviewer for their time, and have endeavoured to address these comments in the text.

 

 

THE HEADLINE

The headline is so far okey, but research areas suggested to be 'emerging' have been there for a long time. I actually consider several of the topics the authors focus on as completely 'missed but well known' topics in the research so far, not as new ones emerging. I do not ask for another headline, but I think the headline would have been more inspiring if the authors add similar dimension as they have stated in line 204; the purpose is to provide a guide for future areas of investigation and cooperation.

 

AUTHORS We agree with this comment and have adjusted the title accordingly.

 

 

 THE METHODOLOGY

The literature review seems to have been conducted in a clear way, although I am surprised that they ended up with only including 179 articles 'qualified'. I know most of the papers in their supplemental file, and both there, and in other sources not included, there are substantial literature that could have been included. This is a limitation of the study.

 

AUTHORS We have updated the reference list which now includes 290 papers.

 

We have also included the search string into the paper that was used.

 

Regarding the 'topic modeling process'. I have been working with that method but I have no extensive experience the 'Latent Dirichlet Allocation'. However, but the authors have described this part of their methodology in sufficient details to enable reproduction of their findings.

 

SOME BASIC TERMS - ECONOMY.

The authors apply multiple terms related to economy and effectiveness. They should use a stricter terminology of what they mean by efficiency, effectiveness, and cost-efficiency. 

 

 

As an example, they state that 'emerging aviation technologies have been shown to improve the timelines and efficiency of health project transport'. I assume they do not mean cost-efficient, for that has until now not been documented in a proper way as I see it. 

 

 

I therefore think it would be useful to state what they mean related to various economy topics during their presentation and discussion. 

 

AUTHORS We have included descriptions of these two terms in line 261, to guide the reader as to what we are referring to when we talk about efficiency and effectiveness in the paper.  efficiency (optimizing the process to minimize resources) and effectiveness (accomplishing the desired outcomes).

 

 

 

I will also add that economic sustainability of UAVs in health services will have to be exposed to standard efficiency theory. We should realize any that new treatment or technical device introduced to current health systems will have to be assessed in a value-based economic assessment (cost/benefit), as introducing a new solution of treatment modus must be balanced against other new solutions because they may exclude each other within the restricted economic resources available. I consider this as an important recognition.

 

 

AUTHORS We agree with this comment. See our updated section in the conclusions

 

SUITABILITY OF THE METHODOLY.

My main concern is the outcome of the application of their methodology and how the authors  are  using and interpreting their findings. From the 179 articles qualified, they usually present only one cited article for each of their statements. Some of these citati

I will give a couple of examples. In lines 272-275 they state that 'The topic ‘Cost Effectiveness’ scrutinized the economic viability of integrating UAVs into healthcare supply chains [29]. This research conducted comparative economic analyses between UAV implementations and traditional healthcare supply chain methods, assessing the cost implications and potential increases in efficiency.'

 This paper they have cited was from a use-case in Madagascar, related to a very specific setting, region and purpose. The study compared UAVs to existing transport solutions which probably is only relevant for the studied system where traditional transport systems may be non-existing for periods of times and little efficient when functioning. This cited study is neither a proof for, nor a proof against, UAVs. The study was conducted several years ago and the framework of this study does not allow extension to order models.

 

However, there other papers who have studied economy in real studies, most of them in similar developing systems as Madagascar but also studies of real-life economy in other regions. This is not included in the presentations.

 

With respect to the topic 'defibrillator deployment', the authors state that this topic feature prominently in the literature but that the major body of research so far have consisted of simulations. But there are also several studies of real-life projects comparing real life ambulance and draw transport. The authors presentation ends up a little 'one-eyed'. To spark ideas for future research avenues, they would need to include and elaborate on more of the articles.

 There are more examples throughout the article.

 

 

AUTHORS We have gone through the manuscript and amended the refernces throughout and added many more references from the database into the text.

 

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY.

 

A section of 'Limitations of the study' is a must in this this paper. 

One serious limitation is the scarce reference use of the articles they actually have qualified. 

 

AUTHORS We previously only used one or two references from each corpus to back up the text. Based on the comments we have gone back and added multiple citations for each topic.    this has expanded the number of refernces in the manuscript considerably.

 

Another is the method they use to qualify the sited papers and make their associations. What are the pitfalls of the methodology? They obviously have missed essential research papers. 

 

AUTHORS We have included a limitations section into the discussion and listed that missing references through a word search is always the downfall of any review.

 

 

A third limitation is the fact that there is a lot of literature that in part fill in some of the gaps the authors suggest, but this literature has not been included by the authors. I have read more than two thousand papers on UAVs in health care published after 2021. There is a lot of knowledge out there, but I conclude similarly to the authors; there are still large gaps in the research. The authors should elaborate on such perspectives.

 

AUTHORS We are similarly amazed that 2000 papers have been published on using drones in health care yet they do not use the common  terms for ‘drones’ UAV’s and ‘healthcare’ in their title, abstract nor key words. We have added into the conclusion the statement ‘the development of more unified terminology will facilitate the identification and alignment of essential research areas.

 

 

AUTHORS This is the search criteria we used.

( drone*  OR  "unmanned aerial vehicle*"  OR  "unmanned aerial system*"  OR  "remotely piloted aircraft*"  OR "uncrewed aerial vehicle*"  OR  "uncrewed aerial system*") AND  ( "healthcare"  OR  "medic*"  OR  "health"  OR  "health care" )

 

We have now included this in the text of the paper.

 

 

Furthermore, the authors used articles until 2022. Several of their topics have been studied during the period after 2022 and until today. Actually, I find the research on UAVs to be extremely accelerating and that several papers published only a year or two ago are outdated,   particularly related to regulations which finally is coming into place now with increasing pace. Although this makes it rather challenging to stay 'ahead' of the research, there are large gaps to propose for future emerging topics. This has not been covered by the current article.

 

AUTHORS We have now updated the manuscript with references to the end of 2023. WE have not included 2024 because of the temporal analysis requiring a full 12 months.

 

THE 'CONCLUSION' IN THE PAPER. 

 

As I observe the current Conclusion it has a very limited value. It should much more firmly state what are the findings of missing topics/connections/combinations of the current research. Then based on this, propose what are the crucial future research demands. 

The authors vaguely indicate the need for research to explore differing research topics across different dimensions. I would like to hear their opinion about research of varying topics in different systems and regions, i.e., urban/rural, developed/developing systems.

 

AUTHORS We have now written a study limitations section to address these concerns.

 

 

The authors state that more studies are required to study the impact of UAV medical item delivery on patient outcomes. What do they mean with outcomes? Access to services? Survival? Healthiness? 

 

AUTHORS We have expanded on this topic in this section

 

I fully support the authors that the research into broad based benefits is still in its infancy. To exaggerate a bit, I would say some topics are only at a fetal stadium.  As the Conclusion stands now, it did not tell me much new. The authors should have the ambition to improve that because they have the needed platform to do it.

 

AUTHORS We have endeavored to address these concerns and changed the conclusions section to be a recommendation section (suggestion from reviewer 2). However, this is a topic modelling review (quantitative) and not a qualitative review. So we have been careful to only include conclusions that are backed up by the results in the paper  and not include nuances that would be gathered from a manual review of the literature. We believe these types of reviews exist elsewhere.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an interesting review and analysis of the healthcare drone delivery research area, using numerical correlations of lexicographic elements in studies to pinpoint research gaps.

The study presents a resonable contribution to knowledge, though I would suggest that its outcomes are better presented as recommendations for future research, and the impacts this may have on practical drone implementations. It may aslo be preferable to highlight some more key examples of some of the content covered to give a little more detail.

I have also identified the following issues, where I suggest changes are made:

P3 - how have the authors addressed the ranging terminology used for describing drones. Eg. UAV, drone, uncrewed aerial vericle, unmanned aerial vehicle, RPAS, etc.

P4 - I would suggest that "case study", "use", and "integrating/integration" are added to the application category

P5-191 - Random in space and time makes it sound like flights are fully ungoverned.

P5-206 (and elsewhere) - make it clear that the X% referes to only the material identified, not all content, as it is unlikely that all papers will be captured in the search.

P6 - I am unclear how search and rescue is drone delivery. It has relevance, but not sure if it should be in the core search and analysis.

Fig 2. - Why is it that the Emergency response has an exact vocab overlap with overcoming remote?

Fig. 3. - a passing comment is made in the text, but the relevance of this figure and what it means should be highlighted in more depth.

As a final note for future reference, I would suggest that captions are left in the text, so reviewers can understand the placement within the main body.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Largely the text read very well. The only minor point I spotted was on the web version of the abstract, where there is a K typo before the start! I may also suggest that terminology is tightened when referencing Figures (Fig/Figure, etc).

Also on page 4, I think preceding should be proceeding. Preceding sound like the papers emerged before the first paper?!

Author Response

This paper presents an interesting review and analysis of the healthcare drone delivery research area, using numerical correlations of lexicographic elements in studies to pinpoint research gaps.

 

AUTHORS:We thank the reviewer for the positive comments about our manuscript.

 

The study presents a resonable contribution to knowledge, though I would suggest that its outcomes are better presented as recommendations for future research, and the impacts this may have on practical drone implementations. It may also be preferable to highlight some more key examples of some of the content covered to give a little more detail.

 

AUTHOR:We have reworded the discussion to encompass a section upon recommendations for future research and provided additional details for implementation.

 

I have also identified the following issues, where I suggest changes are made:

 

P3 - how have the authors addressed the ranging terminology used for describing

drones. Eg. UAV, drone, uncrewed aerial vericle, unmanned aerial vehicle, RPAS, etc.

 

AUTHORS: We used the most commonly used terminology to describe UAVs in our word search. We have now provided the search string in the main document so that readers can ascertain ranging terminology.

 

 

P4 - I would suggest that "case study", "use", and "integrating/integration" are added to the application category

 

AUTHOR: We cannto do this because the words that feature in the manuscript were not suggestions made by use but keywords identified by searching for specific terms and their variations within the word/ topic matrix generated by the LDA model, using the following regular expressions.

 

P5-191 - Random in space and time makes it sound like flights are fully ungoverned.

 

AUTHORS: We have changed the word random for arbitrarily.

 ‘As emergencies occur arbitrarily in space and time’

 

P5-206 (and elsewhere) - make it clear that the X% referes to only the material identified, not all content, as it is unlikely that all papers will be captured in the search.

 

AUTHORS: We agree and have reworded the text:

 

AUTHORS: The 11 topics were the most suitable representation of the body of research within the 293 manuscripts, representing the application of drones in healthcare (Table 1)

 

P6 - I am unclear how search and rescue is drone delivery. It has relevance, but not sure if it should be in the core search and analysis.

 

AUTHORS:.   We did not seek to find ‘search and rescue’ manuscripts. The Topic modelling identified ‘Search and Rescue’ as a topic within the drone health care literature. Manuscripts contained  multiple topics.  TO aid elleviate confusion on the methods we have now added the search string into the methods, and a database in the supplementary which shows the Topic modelling predictions for each manuscript.

 

 

 

Fig 2. - Why is it that the Emergency response has an exact vocab overlap with overcoming remote?

 

AUTHORS: In response to the reviewer's comment regarding Figure 2, we would like to clarify that the figure indicates the co-occurrence of the topics "Emergency response" and "Overcoming remoteness" within the same articles. This is not indicative of a vocabulary overlap. Figure 1, which shows vocabulary similarity, clearly demonstrates that these two topics are distinct and far apart from each other, indicating different terminologies.

 

The frequent co-occurrence of these topics in the same articles suggests that they are well-connected and do not constitute a gap in research. The overlap in articles indicates that effective emergency response often requires overcoming logistical challenges associated with remote locations. Therefore, we did not devote much time to these well-connected topics. Instead, our focus was on detecting research topics that do not interact as frequently, offering potential new avenues for future research. By identifying these less connected topics, we aim to highlight areas where further investigation could be most impactful in advancing the field.

 

Fig. 3. - a passing comment is made in the text, but the relevance of this figure and what it means should be highlighted in more depth.

 

AUTHORS We have inserted citation for this figure at the other points in the text where it is referenced

 

As a final note for future reference, I would suggest that captions are left in the text, so reviewers can understand the placement within the main body.

 

AUTHORS We have added the location of the figures into the text for the review.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

Largely the text read very well. The only minor point I spotted was on the web version of the abstract, where there is a K typo before the start!

 

AUTHORS This did not appear on the pdf. So we were unsure how to correct this comment.

 

I may also suggest that terminology is tightened when referencing Figures (Fig/Figure, etc).

 

AUTHORS We have gone through the text to tighten up figure referencing.

 

Also on page 4, I think preceding should be proceeding. Preceding sound like the papers emerged before the first paper?!

 

AUTHORS This has been changed to ‘Over the following 12 years’

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The authors perform a comprehensive analysis of UAV in healthcare opportunities. Using research literature published as early as 2010 to 2022, they have performed an analysis of the published papers to establish key associations with topics in healthcare with each other, identified research gaps and presented viewpoints regarding the future of UAV in the healthcare sector. The review structure is good, but the following additions can be made to improve it:

I like the fact that the authors have decided to go with the “Uncrewed” terminology rather than “Unmanned.”

However, their title uses the word drone. Is it possible to change the title to match the terminology used in the abstract?

The keywords presented on line 30 need to be modified. 5 most important keywords should be retained.

UAV, RPAS, health care and medical delivery are good keywords that can be kept.

The cut of date for examining papers is 2022. The study was done in 2023. It is now 2024 and the study is already two years old. Why is the cut-off period so long? It is understandable if the cut-off period is mid-2023.

The authors should either provide a strong justification to the fact that only papers till 2022 were used OR modify the data and represent the results.

Add a graph that shows the per year distribution of articles used in the study.

i.e. 20 articles from 2010, 30 from 2011, 50 from 2012 and so on. Then if a trend is observed in number of articles selected, describe that trend.

Line 95 says: “We extracted each article's titles, keywords, and abstracts to identify topics within the dataset to serve as the article content.”

How was this extracted? What platform/tool was used?

Section 3 is Results and Discussion. Is it possible to split the two sections, with the decision section first followed by the Result section?

The Figures 1,2 and 3 have long 5-line captions and no separate mention in-text. This is highly unconventional. In my opinion all figures should have short and concise captions and then a comprehensive description in-text of the manuscript.

Tables should be present near their place of mention in-text. Table 1 is first mentioned in line 201, however it is shown in section 4. This is inconvenient to the reader.

Figure 2 is mentioned on line 249 but appears in section 4. All figures and tables should appear near their first place of mention in-text.

 

 

Author Response

AUTHORS We thank the reviewer for these comments and have endeavoured to include these comments into the manuscript

 

I like the fact that the authors have decided to go with the “Uncrewed” terminology rather than “Unmanned.”However, their title uses the word drone. Is it possible to change the title to match the terminology used in the abstract?

 

AUTHORS We agree that Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles is the most suitable term for the aircraft themselves. However, ‘drone medical delivery’ has become a term in its own right in the field, and we believe this is the most suitable title for this manuscript.

 

The keywords presented on line 30 need to be modified. 5 most important keywords should be retained.

 

AUTHORS We have modified key words as suggested.

 

The cut of date for examining papers is 2022. The study was done in 2023. It is now 2024 and the study is already two years old. Why is the cut-off period so long? It is understandable if the cut-off period is mid-2023.

 

The authors should either provide a strong justification to the fact that only papers till 2022 were used OR modify the data and represent the results.

 

AUTHORS This was a typo in the methods the data base in the original submission comprised paper up until August 2023. Since this review this has now been updated to the start of 2024. For temporal comparison it is important that a full 12 months of papers is included for each year. Therefore, it was not valid to include papers from the fisrt 5 months of 2024 into the analysis.

 

Add a graph that shows the per year distribution of articles used in the study.

i.e. 20 articles from 2010, 30 from 2011, 50 from 2012 and so on. Then if a trend is observed in number of articles selected, describe that trend.

 

AUTHORS We agree this is a good addition to the paper and have built and added this graphic as Figure 1.

 

Line 95 says: “We extracted each article's titles, keywords, and abstracts to identify topics within the dataset to serve as the article content.”

How was this extracted? What platform/tool was used?

 

AUTHORS: We have provided more details and clarification for the data extraction. It is now reading as:

 

“We extracted each article's titles, keywords, and abstracts from the Clarivate Web of Science and Scopus platforms. Due to the novelty of the research field and the lack of broadly established research terminologies, we also included grey literature captured in Google Scholar. We downloaded BibTeX files containing the article information and exported them as a data frame to R using the 'convert2df' function in the package 'bibliometrix' (Ref).”

 

Section 3 is Results and Discussion. Is it possible to split the two sections, with the decision section first followed by the Result section?

 

AUTHORS The original version had separate results and a discussion. However, after careful consideration, we decided to merge the two sections to reduce the word count because the paper was already very lengthy. Due to the large amount of detail within each figure, we believe that it is easier for the readers to follow the flow of the text by combining results and discussion. This is a typical structure for

review papers.

 

 

The Figures 1,2 and 3 have long 5-line captions and no separate mention in-text. This is highly unconventional. In my opinion all figures should have short and concise captions and then a comprehensive description in-text of the manuscript.

 

AUTHORS Whilst we agree such lengthy figure descriptions are unusual for a typical paper, they are not unusual for figures when a lot of information is being conveyed such as an infographic or in the results of topic modelling. We have however, reduced text where we can and moved some of the information into the text.

 

We would like to consult with the associate editor on this one and will change if they think it is warranted.

 

Tables should be present near their place of mention in-text. Table 1 is first mentioned in line 201, however it is shown in section 4. This is inconvenient to the reader.

 

AUTHORS We agree. This paper structure is not the final format and we believe just used by MDPI at the review stage.   We have now written placeholders in the text to show the reviewers where the figures will be positioned in the final version.

 

Figure 2 is mentioned on line 249 but appears in section 4. All figures and tables should appear near their first place of mention in-text.

 

AUTHORS Same response as above.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

 

1. In the introduction, the authors could insert a short paragraph at the end of the text describing the other sections of the article;

 

2. In the methodology section, the authors have not indicated which were the key words for the database search;

 

3. I suggest inserting a figure that represents the proposed methodological scheme.

 

The paper is well structured and I believe that with a little revision it could be considered for publication.

 

Best regards

 

 

 

Author Response

1. In the introduction, the authors could insert a short paragraph at the end of the text describing the other sections of the article;

AUTHORS We have added a new section to the end of the introduction describing the review process undertaken within the article. .

2. In the methodology section, the authors have not indicated which were the key words for the database search;

 AUTHORS We have now included the search string into the main body of the text

3. I suggest inserting a figure that represents the proposed methodological scheme.

AUTHORS Whilst we agree that this may assist the reader. The paper already has 4 figures, and we have already taken on the suggestion of reviewer 1 to include a figure to show the manuscript publication timeline. Therefore, we have decided not to make an additional figure but have added additional text at the end of the introduction to assist guide the reader of the methodological scheme.

The paper is well structured and I believe that with a little revision it could be considered for publication.

AUTHORS Thank you for your kind words

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The major part of my comments have been solved satisfactorily.

I support publication of this paper.

I congratulate the authors with their work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have sufficiently addressed all my concerns.