Synchronization Sliding Mode Control of Closed-Kinematic Chain Robot Manipulators with Time-Delay Estimation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comment to authors:
I have gone through this paper thoroughly.
This paper is quite interesting and the experimental design is solid.
I still want to see the authors to do some sensitivity tests to demonstrate the effectiveness of the introduced model so as to reach a solidified outcome.
How many parameters need to adjust in the introduced model? how to set the initial value and search range?
Please identify the main controbution of this paper in the introduction part and identify the main difference between this and existed ones.
In sum, this paper still poses high quality and robustness.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, thank you very much for your valuable evaluation and recommendation! With respect to your comments, the manuscript has been revised and modified to improve the quality. Our detailed responses with respect to your comments are presented in the attached file.
Best regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents a synchronization control scheme based on the concept of sliding mode control (SMC) developed for CKCMs called nonsingular fast terminal sliding mode control (NFTSMC) in conjunction with the time-delay estimation (TDE) method. The theory and algorithm was well presented. The performance of the method was assessed by simulation on a 2 degrees-of-freedom (DOF) planar CKCM manipulator. Overall, the paper is in a relatively good shape. I suggest minor revisions from authors before publication. Here are some comments to improve the paper.
- For the introduction, the synchronization concept and TDE controller was mentioned and discussed. Several references regarding these two concepts were presented. However, the comparison between those methods and the presented method of the paper has not been well discussed. More contents that emphasize the novelty of the whole idea could be a good enhancement for the paper.
- Regarding the simulation using a 2 DOF planar CKCM manipulator, authors may discuss more about the reasons and advantages why choosing such manipulator.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, thank you very much for your valuable evaluation and recommendation! With respect to your comments, the manuscript has been revised and modified to improve the quality. Our detailed responses with respect to your comments are presented in the attached file.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is a relevant subject and written at a good level.However, there are some points that need to be corrected, so I recommend a Major revision of the article.
The title of the article completely corresponds to it.
However, the article has a few points that need to be corrected:
- Authors must completely adjust the article to the requirements of the journal (according to the template). Now it looks like a combination of IEEE and MDPI style.
- Missing or misplaced characters and other errors are very common in the article. It needs to be fixed.
- The authors of the article talk about the control of the kinematics of the robot, but first the article gives a scheme of control. It is necessary to give a kinematic scheme first, so that readers have an understanding of what is being controlled.
- The authors say that they conducted a simulation in MatLab, but give the picture a real setup. The control system and algorithms in MatLab should be described.
- If the authors have an experimental setup that can confirm the simulation results, why are they not in the article?
- Paragraph 6.2 should be described in more detail. The results obtained should be analyzed.
- Authors should think about a better image and description of Figures 6 and 7.
- Conclusions need to be clearer with specific meanings.
- It may be worthwhile to transfer some of the theoretical justification to the appendices.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First of all, thank you very much for your valuable evaluation and recommendation! With respect to your comments, the manuscript has been revised and modified to improve the quality. Our detailed responses with respect to your comments are presented in the attached file.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors revised the article and significantly improved it. However, there are some comments, so I recommend a minor revision.- There are still formatting errors according to the article template.
- Figure 2 needs to be reworked it is not a kinematic diagram (scheme) robot.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have already represented the manuscript according to the article template and Figure 2 is also revised. The revised manuscript has been attached.
Thank you very much again.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
