Multibody Dynamics Simulation and Vibration Test for High Clearance Orchard Sprayer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors’,
The research presents in this paper a very interesting topic and for a case study type of paper. However, there is some work to be done for the article to be considered a scientific article.
1. The language of the article is basic. Some sentences are difficult to understand or written not in a fully professional way.
2. The novelty of the article is a crucial thing. The article lack this component it is not clearly stated why the study is performed. Without this, the paper is more of an engineering report type than a scientific paper.
3. The abstract gives only small information. There is no novelty presented in the abstract. Additionally, information like specific data information is not something that is to be presented in the abstract where the reader should find only the general feeling of the paper and stated novelty. In this case, also the abstract gives a lot of conclusions which are to be mostly presented in the specified chapter for this at the end of the paper. Also, some sentences are problematic to understand and look like straight translations from the authors' language to English (like 15). Suggest rewriting the abstract.
4. The introduction is weak. Although the authors made an effort with the literature review, the state of art examination is basic with only a few references. Additionally, no information on the state of art in the case of testing methods is presented. Authors are using multiple tools like FEM simulations, and stress and vibration tests but don’t present any review on these methods. This requires significant changes, especially since a lot of new tools, especially contactless, optical ones can be used for this type of measurement. Consider including in state of art analysis the use of DIC (digital image correlation) in case of stress measurements like https://doi.org/10.3390/s19245503 and https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13163460. In the case of vibration measurements 3D laser vibrometry like DOI: 10.1109/IDAACS53288.2021.9661060 and Guinchard, M. Non-invasive measurements of ultra-lightweight composite materials using laser Doppler Vibrometry system, Proceedings of the 26th International Congress on Sound and Vibration, ICSV 2019. Especially, this last method is the state-of-the-art application for operational modal analysis in the case of working machines.
Also, again, no novelty was presented in the last paragraph and the aim of the study is not fully stated. Again it looks more like an engineering evaluation than a scientific approach.
5. Methodology, again no introduction is given on the used methodology only a straight explanation of the measurements themselves. No references were given to a similar approach (which could have been done in the introduction). It is not possible to cross-check if the methodology is correct for someone not familiar with this kind of measurement. In the case of real-life experiments, no specific data is given on experimental setup, sensors, accuracy etc. This must be improved before eventual publication. The reviewer can not state the correctness of the methodology without an explanation of what resources were used to obtain the results.
6. Additionally, some results are not visible. E.g. data presented in Fig.15. Although presented in the table before the figure is not inputting much due to low quality and no possibility of reading scales, legends or text placed in this figure.
7. Conclusions are weak and more of a result discussion type. No novelty presented again, no next steps, application of results. The purpose of the presented work is not clear and these elements should be the main element of the conclusions.
In conclusion: Due to some major problems with the article it is suggested to make significant changes. The reviewer will be glad to review the updated article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with a very interesting topic for researchers. General speaking, the manuscript is well written and organized. The presentation is interesting and well organized, in order to presents the main problems of the domain.
Concerning the parts of the paper, the abstract can better summarize the content of the paper, so that it becomes more useful, suggestive and interesting for the reader.
I consider that the domain of the multibody dynamics simulation and vibration can be extended (if is not possible now, maybe in a future paper).
The Section Conclusion can be better organized, may be with items, to point out the main results obtained in the domain. In the same time the Conclusion must present some results, judgments and recommendations useful for the engineering in applications.
If the authors take into account all these corrections, then the manuscript will be improved and can be published.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The article was improved according to the points from the 1st review
Although the quality of the paper still can be improved, if no additional requests are asked by the other reviewer/s, the paper can be accepted for publication.
