Trajectory Optimization of Industrial Robot Arms Using a Newly Elaborated “Whip-Lashing” Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, thank you very much for submitting a very interesting and up-to-date paper. The topic you chose definitely fits the profile of the audience of the Applied Sciences journal. I assess the paper as well-prepared; however, I would like to highlight the areas for further improvement mostly only technical).

Please find my comments below in chronological order:

Line 1 – Please leave only „Article”

In the abstract, please indicate sharply the value added of method in a few words-why this method was good for the research?

Please add two or three more keywords – they will increase the visibility of the paper in scientific search engines

Line 32 – is the robotics a tool? It sounds not good.

Line 35-42 – too long sentence

line 43 – reference needed

line 53 should be „represents”

Unfortunately, Figure 5 is not readable. Is this possible to replace it with the figure of better quality? Similar comment for Figure 8.

Lines 352 – please adjust formatting, the same for line 362

After line 366, the managerial and research implications and impact should be more highlighted to show the value of the study. The existing text is not sufficient. I would suggest adding a few sentences or one paragraph about filling the research gap, enhancing the knowledge, confirming previous results of other researchers or denial etc.

Chosen literature supports the content sufficiently.

To sum up, I propose to make minor revisions. However, please take into consideration, especially my last comment about adding the information about the impact. The research part is very clear for the reader and I think it would be easy to understand for a broader audience, even not related to the research field. Well done!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This work introduces a new method (“whip-lashing”) for the trajectory planning of a robot arm.

This work is within the scope of the journal. Language is overall good, with few changes required throughout the manuscript. The references in the study need to be enriched. Conclusions are adequate. Sections are clear.

Line 84. ‘….factors for evaluation.’ Need a citation. Please insert the following one: ‘https://doi.org/10.3390/en13112730’

Figures 2, 3, 4, 6-21 need better analysis.

I will check the schemes, after better resolution will be given by the Authors.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The document has been improved.

 

Line 95. '… and the section 4. will….'.  After 4 erase the point (.)

Line 139 & 146.  '…and ending in final point F'. replace F with E

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf