Hierarchical Control in Mechatronic Technological Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1- The authors describe the experimental studies in detail. However, the contribution of this paper to the literature is not clearly explained.
2- Not enough studies have been cited, studies on this subject should be further examined and discussed in the literature review section.
3- The experimental study is described in detail.
4- Equations must be numbered.
5- The results obtained from the proposed hierarchical audit method should be compared with other methods.
6- The results obtained are adequately shared in the conclusion section.
Author Response
Hello dear reviewer.
Please see the attachment.
Thanks,
Natalia Lishchenko.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript on hierarchical control in mechatronic systems lacks clarity in defining key terms like "control by deviation" and "control by disturbance." It asserts the relevance of hierarchical control in mechanical engineering without supporting evidence and introduces a method using a limit switch instead of a spindle sensor without addressing reliability concerns. Comparative analysis and practical examples are also absent, weakening the article's theoretical foundation and practical relevance in the field.
Keywords should be in alphabetical order.
The paper lacks a clear structure, making it challenging for the reader to follow the logical progression of ideas. There are numerous technical terms and concepts introduced without adequate explanation or contextualization, which can confuse readers unfamiliar with the subject matter.
The writing style is very poor.
Author Response
Hello dear reviewer.
Please see the attachment.
Thanks,
Natalia Lishchenko.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
... please see the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
please see details in report
Author Response
Hello dear reviewer.
Please, see the attachment.
Kind regards,
Natalia Lishchenko.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for your efforts to make the article more understandable.
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
Thank you very much for the comments.
Kind regards,
Natalia Lishchenko.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This version is acceptable.
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
Thank you very much for the comments.
Kind regards,
Natalia Lishchenko.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
... see the attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
It is essential that the entire manuscript will be subjected to revision of the English language by a native speaker. That is still required. E.g. the fact, that the authors have used the title of subsection 4.4 as „Alternate work of CNC and IMM“ doesn´t correspond to that the manuscript has already been subjected to high-quality revision of English language. Another example, that confirms this fact is the wrong sentence: „For instance, reliability as a property highly desirable for has to be adjusted to „ ... autonomous systems, is a measure …“. Another example is using the word „problem“ instead of „issue“.
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
Please see the attachment.
Kind regards,
Natalia Lishchenko.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
