Analysis of Platform Leveling Systems for Tracked Feller-Buncher Machines
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, the theoretical study is original and its conclusions are interesting but orientative.
English redaction should be revised, as long as there are some confusing parragraphs (for example, lines 81-82, line 94, line 128).
Table 1 is not located in a proper site inside the article. If I have well understood the methodology, Figures 6, 7 and 8 are based on the data from this Table, so it should be located close to these Figures. In the methodology, the authors should explain that the date used for the regressions come from the source of the data in the Table (for example, the machine manufacturers, in my opinion this source remains unclear in the present version).
In the same Table 1, I guess that NA means "Not Applicable" or something similar, but I think that it should be stated in the legend.
The main weak point of the article is the discussion, because it is not a discussion at all, but some kind of aditional explanations about the results. The authors must:
a) point out the limitations of their methodology, namely the importance of the felling head weight, the boom position and the boom reach on the stability of the machine. These facts have not been considered, so it must be indicated. On the other hand, "forestry machines working on steep slopes typically lose traction before they are close to their static roll-over limit (Visser, 2013a), so both terrain slope and soil strength must be taken into account". This last limitation should also be recognised.
b) compare their results with related literature, for example:
Guidelines for difficult terrain ground based harvesting operations in South Africa
Andrew McEwan*, Michal Brink and Salmon van Zyl
ICFR Bulletin 02-2013
Expanding Ground-based Harvesting onto Steep Terrain: A Review
Rien Visser, Karl Stampfer
Croat. j. for. eng. 36(2015)2
Tension Monitoring of a Cable Assisted Machine.
Visser, R. 2013.
Harvesting Technical Note HTN05-11. Rotorua, NZ: Future Forests Research Ltd.
Mechanising steep terrain harvesting operations
Rien Visser, Keith Raymond and Hunter Harrill
NZ Journal of Forestry, November 2014, Vol. 59, No. 3 3
Steep Slope Feller Buncher: A Feasibility Study
Amishev, D.
Future Forest Research
Task No: F20005 Report No. FFR- H007
In my opinion, a thorough comparison of the research results with other references is obliged in such a scientific article.
Author Response
The authors sincerely thank the reviewer for his highly professional comments, which significantly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.
All changes to the manuscript are presented in the PDF version and selected by yellow color.
Lines 81-82, line 94, line 128 were revised.
The position of Table 1 was fixed, «NA» explained.
Methodology, Discussion and Conclusions sections were reworked.
Thank you so much for pointing us to the actual references!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have reviewed the paper titled: “Analysis of platform leveling systems for tracked feller-buncher machines". In my opinion, the aims of the paper are germane with “Inventions” journal topic, however, in the present form, the paper fits only in part with the international scientific standards. The paper is written with an average English level. The contribution of this paper to the scientific knowledge could be considered acceptable but some important flaws are present in the text. I understand the difficult work done, but as a reviewer it is my duty to highlight the gaps in order to improve the research approach and its presentation to the international scientific community. Please I suggest revising the paper following the suggestions and comments reported in the pdf attached, in order to improve this interesting paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors sincerely thank the reviewer for his highly professional comments, which significantly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.All changes to the manuscript are presented in the PDF version and selected by yellow color. One additional keyword was added. In papers on a similar theme, the same keywords were used. Locations of machines origin were added. The objectives of the study were reformulated. Methodology, Discussion and Conclusions sections were reworked.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Now I hink that the authors have addressed the recommendations properly, so improving the article clarity and the scope and limitations of the results. I encourage the authors to keep on working in this field, trying to incorporate aditional parameters to the study
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments!
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have reviewed for the second time the paper titled: “Analysis of platform leveling systems for tracked feller-buncher machines". In my opinion, the aims of the paper are germane with “Inventions” journal topic, however, in the present form, the paper fits again only in part with the international scientific standards. The paper is written with an average English level. The contribution of this paper to the scientific knowledge could be considered acceptable but some important flaws are still present in the text. I understand the difficult work done, but as a reviewer it is my duty to highlight the gaps in order to improve the research approach and its presentation to the international scientific community. Please I suggest revising the paper following the suggestions and comments reported below, in order to improve this interesting paper.
My previous comments were mostly about three issues:
- a) Improving introduction section highlighting clearly the aims of the study and the innovative aspects of it
- b) Giving more details about the applied M&M
- c) Improving discussions
- d) Improving references list
A: this comment was not satisfactorily addressed, authors added briefly their aims but not what it is new in this study and why it should be worth to carry out it.
B: M&M are yet not the M&M of a scientific paper, authors just described the structure of their paper and briefly what they did to get the results, but a reader, according my point of view, can not understand and mostly repeat what they did, so this section in the current version is not acceptable
C: Discussions and conclusions are now better than before
D: No change in reference list
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. The first revision's corrections are highlighted in yellow. The second revision's corrections are highlighted in green.
>a) Improving introduction section highlighting clearly the aims of the study and the innovative aspects of it
>A: this comment was not satisfactorily addressed, authors added briefly their aims but not what it is new in this study and why it should be worth to carry out it.
The aim and novelty of the study are added.
>b) Giving more details about the applied M&M
>B: M&M are yet not the M&M of a scientific paper, authors just described the structure of their paper and briefly what they did to get the results, but a reader, according my point of view, can not understand and mostly repeat what they did, so this section in the current version is not acceptable
Our study is a theoretical work. To reproduce the results of the study, it is necessary to know the geometric and mass-dimensional parameters of feller-buncher machines. This information was taken from public sources from the manufacturer's websites.
>c) Improving discussions
>C: Discussions and conclusions are now better than before
A new paragraph has been added, taking into account the studied sources.
>d) Improving references list
>D: No change in reference list
Nineteen papers have been added to the list of references. If we are missing any important paper, please let us know.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have read the last version of the paper titled: “Analysis of platform leveling systems for tracked feller-buncher machines". As I stated in the previous revision, in my opinion, the aims of the paper are germane with “Inventionts” journal topics, the paper fits with the international scientific standards, and now all the flaws were addressed. The paper is written with an appropriate English level. The contribution of this paper to the scientific knowledge is good. Finally, in my opinion the paper reached the optimal level to be published.
