Development of a Rehabilitation Chair Design Based on a Functional Technology Matrix and Multilevel Evaluation Methods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review report
The manuscript title: Rehabilitation Chair Design Based on Functional Technology Matrix and Multi-Level Evaluation Methods.
In this research, the authors used the modular design method and multi-layer evaluation method to solve the problems related to rehabilitation chairs and obtains an optimal chair design suitable for patients with upper and lower extremity disorders.
The authors have used an appropriate number of recent references relevant to the topic of their manuscript. The manuscript is appropriately prepared, the conclusions presented are consistent with the evidence, and arguments presented, and address the main question raised.
This research contains important results, as it effectively provides solutions to cross-functional engineering design problems. Accordingly, I recommend accepting this article for publication in the Journal of Applied Sciences, if the authors take into account minor revisions related to the following notes:
1- The authors do not present a new design for a rehabilitation chair, but rather suggest an improvement to existing design methods. Therefore, I propose to adopt the modified title: “Development of Rehabilitation Chair Design Based on Functional Technology Matrix and Multilevel Evaluation Methods”.
2- Formulas 2, 3, and 4 are not equations, so they must be rewritten to include the symbol "=" and name the quantity each formula denotes.
3- Authors should pay more attention to paragraph and figure formatting.
Author Response
Please refer to the annex.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript addresses the need for designing a product that caters to the diverse rehabilitation requirements of individuals. It highlights the shortcomings associated with existing rehabilitation chairs, including their large massage area, limited capability for localized massage, bulky chair size, and the inability to provide continuous support to damaged body parts.
The authors propose a comprehensive approach to tackle these challenges. They employ both modular design principles and a multi-layer evaluation methodology to devise solutions for rehabilitation chairs. Notably, they utilize a questionnaire survey method and the functional technology matrix approach to establish the functional prerequisites of the rehabilitation chair. Subsequently, they employ diverse multi-level evaluation techniques, such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), entropy weight method, and grey correlation analysis, to optimize the functional aspects of the rehabilitation chair.
The outcome is a specialized chair tailored to address the rehabilitation needs of patients with upper and lower limb disorders. The study effectively resolves issues related to the broad scope of rehabilitation and the durability of chair components, while also achieving the goal of promoting active exercise.
Furthermore, the paper presents evidence to support the efficacy of employing multi-level decision evaluation methods to enhance the efficiency of program decision-making. It lays a solid theoretical and practical foundation for the design of similar products in the field of rehabilitation.
Author Response
Please refer to the annex.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article appears to be a detailed excerpt from a research paper discussing the design and development of a modular rehabilitation chair to address limb movement dysfunction in individuals with various medical conditions. The text provides an overview of the research, its methodology, and the key findings.
Strengths:
Comprehensive Coverage: The text provides a comprehensive overview of the research, including the problem statement, methodology, functional requirements analysis, and the design process. This makes it easy for readers to understand the context and objectives of the study.
Structured Format: The text is well-structured with clear section headings, making it easy for readers to navigate and find relevant information. This enhances readability and comprehension.
Technical Details: The text delves into technical aspects of the research, including the functional technology matrix, rating of functional importance coefficients, and technology compatibility analysis. This depth of detail is appropriate for a research paper.
Clear Language: The text uses clear and precise language, which is important for conveying complex technical information effectively.
Areas for Improvement:
Clarity of Terminology: While the text generally uses clear language, some technical terms and concepts could benefit from more detailed explanations or definitions. This would ensure that readers, including those not well-versed in the field, can fully grasp the content.
Visual Aids: Given the technical nature of the content, the inclusion of diagrams, tables, or figures could greatly enhance understanding. For example, visual representations of the functional technology matrix or the technology compatibility analysis could make complex concepts more accessible.
Transition Sentences: The text could benefit from more transition sentences between sections to improve the flow of the content. These sentences would help guide the reader smoothly from one topic to the next.
Conciseness: Some sections of the text contain repetitive information, which could be condensed to improve overall conciseness without sacrificing clarity. This would make the text more reader-friendly.
Conclusion: While the conclusion section summarizes the research's contributions, it could be enhanced by restating the key findings and their implications. This would provide a more cohesive wrap-up to the paper.
Please be careful with the article|Paper formatting.
Make tables 4, 5 and 6 easier to read.
Author Response
Please refer to the annex.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper deals with rehabilitation chair design based on functional technology matrix. The topic has an apparent societal impact and is consistent with the featured application: "Using Structural Design to Reduce Product Development Costs and Increase Patient Active Rehabilitation Motivation". The paper structure and concept are clear. Also the language quality is appropriate for a journal. However, there are few issues to be mentioned:
1) I would make list of keywords more consistent with the paper title
2) Note sure if all readers are familiar with AHP abbreviation
3) Please doublecheck if all abbreviations are defined before being used.
4) I would add a bit more references to authors previous works just to track the research baseline.
5) It seems the section "Author Contributions" is not finalized
6) Please check the captions of all Figures, see e.g. Figure 1.
7) Also check the Figures numbers, seems Figure 1 appeared twice.
8) The "second" Figure 1 is a bit confusing to me, not sure about the consistency of requirements F1-F11
9) Also I am not sure about the meaning of TX(Y) in Table 1
10) Also not sure about the Coprime Comparison Scores interpretation
11) I would appreciate a bit more details how the technical index factors are computed
12) I am not sure how the numbers in Fig. 4-6 are related to previous tables
13) Similarly, more details about the numbers in Tab. 7 would be nice
14) There are also inconsistencies in typing of math. equations, this should be improved
15) I am also not sure if one needs 5-digit precision in some tables (see e.g. Table 13)
16) What about a caption of Fig. 12? It seems more like a design of new chair.
17) It is strange that a lot of state-of-the-art comments are summarized at the end of the paper is Section 4. However, it is a bit inconsistent, often analysed from control perspective which is not elaborated in previous content of the paper.
Clear, the paper has also few positive aspects, like application of functional technology matrix analysis, nice elaboration of future research plans.
Anyway, the paper needs major revision and another check by the evaluators.
The English language should be doublechecked again
Author Response
Please refer to the annex.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The second revision of the paper has a significantly better quality. All my comments were commented and actions taken.
I think the paper could be considered for publication if all reviewers agree.
English is appropriate for a journal, the authors claimed they will do final check.
