Analysis and Design of a Minimalist Step Climbing Robot

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper entitled “Analysis and design of a minimalist step climbing robot” presents an interesting work on minimizing the variance of the inclination angle to promote the climbing robot performance. The model and data analysis are convincing. And the experiment demonstrates the successful implementation of the concept model. I suggest adding one more table to systematically and quantitatively compare other methods and this work to provide reader a clear picture, including the response speed, the variance of the angle that other people can achieve, the application scenario, etc. In addition, please check your grammar cautiously. Other than that, this paper is well presented. I recommend this work to be published in the Applied Sciences based on its overall quality. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the submitted paper, a wheeled robot with adjustable distance between the front and rear axles is considered. Due to its design this robot can move along a staircase. The authors write that a dynamic model of the motion of such a robot has been created.

In my opinion for a paper to be able to be published in a scientific journal, it should contain a statement of a scientific problem followed by its solution. In the paper under review, I did not find a scientific problem. The paper does not contain any mathematical (dynamical) model, at least according to my understanding of this term. The authors write out a geometrical relationship (6) that is equivalent to the fact that the five-member linkage is a closed planar figure. Then they differentiate two times the relationship obtained (equations (7) and (8)) and call the result of this operation the kinematic model. Then the authors write out rather general equations (9) – (12) for forces and torques and call these equations the equations that define the mathematical model. No analysis of the equations of motion has been performed. It is not clear, which are the conditions of contact of the wheels with the underlying surface and how the mechanical system in question moves along a horizontal surface. Is it assumed, as usual, that the wheels do not slip, i.e., that the absolute velocities of the points of contact of the wheels with the surface are equal to zero or does the slip occur?

Based on the considerations presented above, I cannot recommend this paper for publishing in a scientific journal. Possibly, this study could be of interest in terms of design or technology. I do not presume to judge this.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

• Abstract is very weak and is unlikely to inspire readers to continue.
  • Reference to the submission as a mere “paper” in four places degrades its presentation. Please use a more professional descriptor, e.g. manuscript, treatise, article, etc.
  • Leonhard Euler’s name is misspelled.
  • Quantitative claims are made without any quantitative results worded in broad terminology: “climbs….successfully without slipping”, “effective in carrying….” and “….is advantageous for carrying objects that have higher center of gravity”. Quantitative results in the manuscript’s figures are immediately available to provide such statements.
• Introduction beings very strong.
• Literature review is weakened by abuse of multi-citation without elaborating reasons for the readership to seek each individual reference. This fallacy artificially extends the list of references from eleven to thirty six without justification for the readership to seek the twenty-five superfluous references.
  • Please elaborate reasons for the reader to seek each individual reference in the triple citation of [9,11,33]
  • Please elaborate reasons for the reader to seek each individual reference in the decuple citation of [3,4,6,13,18,31,32,34,35,36]
  • Please elaborate reasons for the reader to seek each individual reference in the double citation of [10,12]
  • Please elaborate reasons for the reader to seek each individual reference in the quintuple citation of [8,14-17]
  • Please elaborate reasons for the reader to seek each individual reference in the double citation of [7,28]
  • Please elaborate reasons for the reader to seek each individual reference in the octuple citation of [19-26]
  • Please elaborate reasons for the reader to seek each individual reference in the double citation of [1,2]
• Inclusion of a list of nomenclature is very well done and enhances the manuscript’s quality.
• Figures are merely modestly well done while their content significantly enhance the manuscript. Recall the smallest text size permissible in the manuscript template is the figure caption, so a proximal guide is available to help ensure legibility of text inside figures.
  • Figure 9 uses exactly the same line styles and thicknesses rendering the data indiscernible when the manuscript is printed, particularly in black and white.
  • Figure 9 has marginally legible internal font.
  • Figure 10 uses exactly the same line styles and thicknesses rendering the data indiscernible when the manuscript is printed, particularly in black and white.
  • Figure 10 has marginally legible internal font.
  • Figure 11 uses exactly the same line styles and thicknesses rendering the data indiscernible when the manuscript is printed, particularly in black and white.
  • Figure 11 has marginally legible internal font.
  • Figure 12 uses exactly the same line styles and thicknesses rendering the data indiscernible when the manuscript is printed, particularly in black and white.
  • Figure 12 has marginally legible internal font.
  • Figure 13 uses exactly the same line styles and thicknesses rendering the data indiscernible when the manuscript is printed, particularly in black and white.
  • Figure 13 has marginally legible internal font.
  • Figure 14 uses exactly the same line styles and thicknesses rendering the data indiscernible when the manuscript is printed, particularly in black and white.
  • Figure 14 has marginally legible internal font.
  • Figure 16a has marginally legible internal font.
  • Figure 21 uses exactly the same line styles and thicknesses (except without control) rendering the data indiscernible when the manuscript is printed, particularly in black and white.
  • Figure 21 has marginally legible internal font.
• Equations are generally well done and significantly enhance the manuscript.
• Tables are generally well done and significantly enhance the manuscript.
• A table should be added to elaborate figure 10’s content: mean and standard deviations of differences between table 10a and table 10b. Such figures of merit should also be stated in the abstract and conclusions as quantitative results expressed in broadly understandable verbiage.
• A table should be added to elaborate figure 11’s content: mean and standard deviations of differences between table 11a and table 11b. Such figures of merit should also be stated in the abstract and conclusions as quantitative results expressed in broadly understandable verbiage.
• A table should be added to elaborate figure 12’s content: mean and standard deviations of differences between table 12a and table 12b. Such figures of merit should also be stated in the abstract and conclusions as quantitative results expressed in broadly understandable verbiage.
• A table should be added to elaborate figure 14’s content: mean and standard deviations of differences between with and without control. Such figures of merit should also be stated in the abstract and conclusions as quantitative results expressed in broadly understandable verbiage.
• A table should be added to elaborate figure 21’s content: mean and standard deviations of differences between table 21a and table 21b. Such figures of merit should also be stated in the abstract and conclusions as quantitative results expressed in broadly understandable verbiage.
• Variables inside figure 22 are illegible.
• Variables inside figure 23 are illegible.
• The conclusions are weak similar to the abstract in that no quantitative results are provided (in broad terminology), despite such results being immediately available.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I remain with my opinion. I think that the article has no scientific content. As regards publishing, I am relying entirely on the editor's opinion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf