Detecting and Controlling Slip through Estimation and Control of the Sliding Velocity
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper, in general, is well-written in a perfect structure. The basic logic is good, and the contributions are quite clear. It is suitable for publication in the current form.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents a friction model and slider motion for a type of robotic manipulator, and a nonlinear observer to estimate the sliding velocity of the object in contact. Thorough investigations of the application have been demonstrated. Some issues however need to be addressed:
1. The main contribution of the paper is to investigate a model-based approach for studying friction. In the prior paragraph, some descriptions of the alternative approach (i.e., model-free methods) was given. What shortcomings are addressed in the approach used in this paper?
2. The planar side dynamic model introduced in the paper is said to be novel; how are (1)--(2) different from that in [20]? This is important to demonstrate the strength the current work has over existing results.
3. Figure 2 seems overly large.
4. The velocity observer in Section 3 is a major contribution, and should therefore be explained in greater detail. Cite and prove the necessary theorems/propositions to attain the estimation of ω.
5. The paper also very heavily cites the authors' previous works (11/29 citations are to the authors' work!). This gives a very biased coverage of the literature.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. In the abstract section, quantitative data must be included.
2. Given the “take-home” message at the end of the abstract, the present form was insufficient.
3. Rearrange keywords alphabetically.
4. Describe the novelty of the article made by the author? From the results of my evaluation, it seems that many similar published works adequately explain what you have raised in the current manuscript. If there is something others really new in this manuscript, please highlight it more clearly in the introduction section.
5. Previous study related needs to explain in the introduction section consisting of their work, their novelty, and their limitations to show the research gaps that intend to be filled in the present study.
6. The last paragraph of the introduction section should be the objective of the present study.
7. The present study concern “slip” for their investigation, so the importance of slip needs further highlight. The recent study from Tauviqirrahman et al. explain the difference results in their investigation of journal bearing with considering slip and no slip that shows relative much difference. The study and its highlight of slip needs to be incorporated. Tauviqirrahman, M.; Jamari, J.; Susilowati, S.; Pujiastuti, C.; Setiyana, B.; Pasaribu, A. H.; Ammarullah, M. I. Performance Comparison of Newtonian and Non-Newtonian Fluid on a Heterogeneous Slip/No-Slip Journal Bearing System Based on CFD-FSI Method. Fluids 2022, 7, 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids7070225
8. Rather than relying just on the predominate text as it already exists, the authors could incorporate more illustrations as figures in the materials and methods section that illustrate the workflow of the current study.
9. More information about tools, such as the producer, country, and specifications, should be included.
10. Valuable information that must be included in the publication refers to the inaccuracy and intolerance of the experimental setup used in this inquiry.
11. Outcomes must be compared to similar past research.
12. The discussion in present article is extremely poor in quality as overall. The authors must elaborate on their arguments and provide a thorough justification. Don't just state the results and give a quick explanation.
13. The limitation of the present study needs to be added at the end of the discussion section before entering the conclusion section.
14. Mention further research in the conclusion section.
15. The authors should give additional references from the five-years back. MDPI reference is strongly recommended.
16. The authors occasionally created paragraphs in the entire document that were just one or two phrases long, which made the explanation difficult to understand. To make their explanation into a longer, more thorough paragraph, the authors should expand it. It is advised to use at least three sentences in a paragraph, with one serving as the primary sentence and the others as supporting phrases.
17. The authors were encouraged to proofread their work due to grammatical problems and linguistic style.
18. Graphical abstract is encouraged to provide in submission after review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
My comments have been sufficiently addressed.
Reviewer 3 Report
It is suitable for publication.
