Pose Detection and Automatic Deviation Correction Control Strategy of Crawler Walking Equipment in Coal Mines
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The article has been corrected and could be published.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
-
The paper has been modified according to the requirements, and I recommend accepting it.
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Good luck!
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
the article is relevant and rather interesting for specialists in the field. However, there are some shortages that in my opinion should be improved before paper promotion:
1. Explanations of all the Figures should be expanded and given more clear.
2. Discussion section should be given separapely from Conclusion. The Discussion should contain Authors' contribution to the science compared to existing acheivements.
3. The literature Review should be expanded to 30-35 items (19 items fit conference papers) and must include internationsl sources.
Good luck!
Reviewer 2 Report
The pose detection and automatic deviation correction of crawler walking equipment in coal mines is undoubtedly the bottleneck of the current industry development. In this paper, based on the research of sector laser pose parameter detection method, a pose detection system based on cross laser is proposed. At the same time, the deviation correction control strategy of crawler walking equipment is studied, and the point deviation correction control strategy based on roadway excavation technology is proposed. The research work in this paper is of great theoretical and practical significance to the pose detection and deviation correction control of crawler walking equipment in coal mines. This paper has a clear structure, good quality of graphs, and good innovation. To further improve this paper, the following detailed comments are proposed.
(1) The introduction section is suggested to be further condensed to highlight the research background and significance of the paper.
(2) It is recommended to improve the experimental details and give the performance parameters of the sensors used in experiments.
(3) Should the preview distance Kfc shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13 be Lfc？
(4) There are problems with the format of some symbols in the paper, and it is recommended to check the formula and symbol format of the whole paper.
(5) It is suggested that the authors unify the terminology in the paper, crawler walking device/anchor digger/crawler robot, pose detection system/navigation system, etc.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is a technical study. Correct, interesting and valuable practically. Nevertheless, it was not based on in-depth literary studies. The section on discussions and conclusions has been combined into a cursory summary. This is not how you can write articles for reputable magazines. The authors must thoroughly correct the above-mentioned mistakes and only then can they think about resubmitting the article for review.
