Design of a Sweet Potato Transplanter Based on a Robot Arm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of applsci-1354320 submission:

Design of a sweet potato transplanter based on a robot arm

I have provided review of this interesting work which focused on the design and test of a sweet potato transplanter based on a robot arm. The paper fits the goals and scope of the journal, but there are many issues of concern that have been described below. Moreover, the manuscript file was submitted without the numbered lines which makes harder to be revised.

The introduction fails to report the most updated scientific novelties and founds in this topic area. A detailed state of the art is missing from this section where the gap of knowledge should be discussed further.  Moreover, the aim of the study should be clearly defined, at present it seems a general objective while a well-structured aim of the work is recommended.

Figure 1 caption must be modified in accordance with the journal guidelines. Description of figure “a”, “b” and “c” must be reported in the figure 1 caption, as well as the description of the components. Larger figures are also recommended, especially for figure 1 a. These suggestions must be applied for the other figures as well.

Figure 12 is blurred, please update a better one

The materials and methods section is not adequately and fully described, a clear description of the procedures adopted is missing. Moreover, a lack of details has been found all over this section. The authors should put more efforts in the description of the methods used.

Table 3 reports 4 methods from B0 to B3 but I couldn’t find any description of this methods in the text.

Table 4 illustrates transplanter results under different forward speed, but these speed values were not defined or mentioned in the text

The results section is too short and concise. In general, the results section is confused and there is no logical thread that guarantees the understanding of the results obtained. Moreover, a discussion of the results found is missing as well as a comparison with other results in the scientific literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript includes very interesting original data that can be of great practical importance. The introduction is written clearly and understandable and provides sufficient background. However, there are several issues that need to be corrected and explained:

Some abbreviations are not defined in the manuscript.

Figure 9 presents the graphs for T=0.05s, 0.01s and 0.001s. However, in the text of the manuscript, it has been written: "The simulation interval is set T=0.05s,0.01s,0.005s"

The methods used for obtaining the results presented in Tables 2 and 3 are not sufficiently described. It should be explained in detail.

Subsection 8.3. Entire machine experimental conditions - It has been written: "the average seedling length was 257 mm, and the average seedling diameter was 5.1 mm.". How many repetitions were used to calculate these values? 

It seems to me that it is worth including the section Discussion containing a comparison of the results obtained in this work and the transplanting results obtained using other devices and methods available in the previous literature. Is the accuracy achieved using the robot better?

Some sentences are repeated in the sections Conclusions and Abstract. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of applsci-1354320 submission: (R2)

Design of a sweet potato transplanter based on a robot arm

 The authors improved the quality of the paper with the suggested comments, but there are some issues of concern that have been described below. I also recommend a major revision of the manuscript by a native speaker for its English.

A specific section of results is missing. At present, the results are included in the section of the methods, which makes the results confused and there is no logical thread that guarantees the understanding of the results obtained.

The conclusions must be revised, the authors should put more effort into the revision of this section including limitations, suggestions for researchers, and stakeholders.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx