The Design of and Experiments with a Double-Row Seed-Metering Device for Buckwheat Breeding in an Experimental Area
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease re/read the work and complete it for a better understanding by the interested readers.
You have some indications on the reviewed paper.
Please correct the English translation!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript describes the design of an improved experimental seeder for buckwheat. The manuscript in its current form is riddled with numerous inaccuracies, as evidenced by the attached file containing comments. To improve its readability, major revisions are necessary, especially in regards to reference citations, instrument details, and the redundancy of certain figures. The discussion of results lacks clarity and scientific soundness, making it unclear which advancements the authors have made.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Overall, the English Language needs revision for wordy sentences that impair manuscript readability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, the article is interesting, and I have several proposals for improvement.
The abstract must be rewritten. It is unclear and must be focused on the novelty and results. You don’t have to split the abstract into subsections.
The text between lines 27 – 35 is a list of ideas without any bibliographic references. Please rewrite the text and add some references.
The text between lines 74 – 81 must have a logical path. You can start with the methodology, the steps of the experiment, what are the goals, and what you plan to achieve. Please rewrite the text.
After Figure 1 it was expected to see the physical result of the double-row seed-metering device.
Please write more details regarding the calculation goal and the simulation goal. Also, you can introduce a comparison with other similar devices.
Please explain the parameters Seeding rate, Raster uniformity coefficient of variation, and Broken rate. How do you measure these parameters? What are the differences between the Tabel 4,5, and 6 results?
What is the meaning of Figures 11,12 and 13? The results are the same as the values in Table 4,5,6?
What is the importance of Single-Factor Experiment and Orthogonal Experiment? Why did you select the experiments? Please make the methodology clear.
Figure 17 has to be improved. Put some leading numbers to see what you want to present. Also, the color of the support has to have a contrast with the color of the seeds.
In the chapter, Conclusions must have future work and a comparison with the results of other studies. Also, must include the novelty, advantages, and disadvantages.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required. Also, some phrases must be rewritten and the logic path must be obvious. Please make the details more clear.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIf you look carefully, there may still be some small errors.
Anyway, congratulations! Success!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed most of my remarks, and I thank them for this. There are still some issues that, in my opinion, prevent the manuscript from being published:
1) The use of proper SI units for the description of the rotational speed (check the pdf file with my reply for details)
2) Using the first person in the second bullet point of the conclusions.
3) The conclusions refer to an EDEM software not described before.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the modifications.
I have some suggestions.
Please use indirect speech in the text. for example, do not use ”I believe that further...”
In 4. Conclusions put a phrase to introduce your conclusions.
Please rename Figure 10, I suggest Hardware setup for Single-Factor Experiment or similar.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
