Design and Testing of a Fully Automatic Aquatic Plant Combing Machine for Crab Farming
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, I am glad that I had a chance to read this very original article. The paper is well structured and well written. However, there are some major corrections you need to add:
1. In the Introrduction please add more references about current state of the research in his field: the capacities, when the previous research is conducted, what is your contribution etc.
2. Describe what is your motivation in doing this research, to be loud and clear.
3. The results on diagrams must be given in English.
4. The units must be on diagrams.
5. Compare the obtained results with literature.
6. Add Nomenclature of the end of the paper.
Hope these comments will help you in paper improvements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I am sending comments on this paper:
1) There are several technical errors in the paper, which should be corrected.
2) Several references are not listed according to the instructions for writing papers. It needs to be corrected.
3) Part of chapter 2 (subchapters 2.4. and 2.5.) do not belong to this chapter 2. Materials and Methods. They should be transferred to chapter 3.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the review report attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is very interesting and I suggest the publication after the following comments are corrected or answered:
Line 10: “this paper developed”: I advise to use the following: “this paper shows the development process…” or “this paper presents the results of the development process…”
Line 42: "at home and abroad": Maybe use the Country name instead of “at Home”.
Line 44: please clarify a bit more, what the “EH, H, and HM” letters mean.
Line 100-102 should be written next to the title of Figure 3, continuing it.
Line 108 “due to its own gravity”: I think “weight” should be used instead of gravity, because Earth has a gravitational pull.
Line 117: What is the capacity of the machine? How often must the shore be visited?
Line 132-133 should be written next to the title of Figure 5, continuing it.
Figure 3 shows the overall design and Figure 5 shows only the torsion spring hooks. Perhaps one more Figure should be added, which shows the position of the spring hook in the machine. Thus, the working principle could be understood more easily.
Line 142: “based on practical experience”: Whose practical experience is this? The authors or other source? Maybe more detail or reference is needed, since this is a boundary condition.
The “R” variable in Equation 1 should be defined next to the Equation as well.
Line 194-201 looks like it is part of the main text, however it is the description of Figure 7. It should be added after the title of Figure 7, or start the paragraph with the following: “Figure 7 shows the schematic diagram of the analysis of torsion spring hook, where…”
The mathematical deduction in Line 209-230 is hardly followable. Some more description is needed to make it more easily understandable.
Line 255-256 should be written next to the title of Figure 9, continuing it.
The units should be presented in the last row in Table 1 (some brackets are in the wrong position).
How Equation 14 resulted from Table 2?
A reference should be added, where Equation 15, 16, 18, 19, 23 are explained ( a book perhaps).
The scale in Figure 10 has too small numbers, which should be increased.
Line 329: How is the mesh element size chosen?
The scale in Figure 13-15 has too small numbers, which should be increased. These figures also have non-English text, which must be changed.
In line 465, a short explanation about the shown deformation should be added.
The numbers in Line 471 and 472 are not matching with the numbers in Table 5.
The last column in Table 5 should be named “Battery worktime (h)”
The averages of the different parameters should be presented in a 4th row in Table 6.
The results of the different experiments are written in Chapter 3. I miss a short summary (which should be Chapter 3.4), where the results of the experiments are shortly evaluated.
The authors mention various widespread machines in aquatic farming. I really miss a comparison, where the characteristics of the newly developed machine and the already used machines compared. Since this paper mainly deals with the development process, this comparison should not be long, since the optimisation process worth another paper. But it would be good, if the readers could get a short outlook about the performance of this machine.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised their manuscript ad per the reviewers' comments. I would recommend the manuscript to be further considered for acceptance
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate revision of English language required.
