Research on the Mechanism of the Skidding Device of Bulk Grain into Silo
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe problem related to mechanism of the skidding device of bulk grain into silo is interesting and some results are worth to be published. ,
Unfortunately, the quality of presentation requires serious revision. Remarks concerning text may be classified into two categories - technical and conceptual. Technical remarks are as follows:
1. Quality of the text is unsatisfactory. The writing style comprising overlong complex sentences makes difficulties in understanding of content. Additionally, the grammar requires corrections. The fragment of text in lines 207-211 illustrates typical weaknesses of the text. “Simulation simulation software is used rocky. in order to guarantee the entry of particles into the bin, and to avoid conveying the process of particles from the boundary out flow, above the inlet to add a specified corn simulation particles of the particle plant, dynamic raw raw corn particles, the formation of coherent particles group into the skidding device to complete the conveying process. The boundary simulation conditions of the particles and the wall are shown in Table 3-1.”
2. Quality of figures must be increased. Generally, improvements could be reached through:
a. application the increasing of technical quality of graphical images according to usual publication standards. Unified approach related to purely technical details such as choice of proper font sizes, colors and style of lines as well as graphical plot of DEM results recommended must be hold for all figures.
b. Generally, description of figures in the text and figure captions are too much formal, and it makes difficult to understand their content and their role in explaining conceptual issues of the paper.
Conceptual remarks. The The main remark concerns presentation of the DEM approach and numerical results. It is difficult to evaluate damage and crushing of particles and to confirm that 70% of dissipation.
Detailed comments basing on this chaotic text are not reasonable.
In summary, major revision is recommended.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
comments in review
Author Response
First of all, thank you very much for pointing out your questions, which are of great help to me. I have carried out all the checks in the article according to your suggestions, thank you again.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript's authors, “Research on the Mechanism of the Skidding Device of Bulk Grain into Silo”, presented research using the finite element method. In the current investigation, they address the problem of mechanical damage of grains when harvesting them into the silo. The manuscript's topic is relevant to the scientific and engineering community so far better understanding of factors affecting the grain to reduce is important.
However, some aspects should be improved and clarified:
1. For some reason authors forgot to mention authors and their affiliations as it is in the template of MDPI Applied Science Journal. Please follow the journal template and specify the information about authors and affiliations.
2. Can you please edit the sentence (Line 26-31). It is very long and hard to understand.
3. Please use for the introduction section a more up-to-date paper. Currently, 17 out of 22 references are outdated and older than 5 years. It is highly recommended to provide more solid overview of earlier publications to state the problem.
4. Please avoid complex citing for three or more references in a row to one sentence. It is very hard to understand what research authors cite. For example (line 59-65). This sentence should be edited and reassembled for smaller parts. It present form it is hard to understand the point.
5. In the last paragraph of the introduction section, it is recommended to focus on what methods and techniques are utilized in the research specifically, not in general.
6. It is recommended to write Newton equation (Line 89) as an equation regarding the journal template requirements
7. Is the sentence (Line 94-96) author's finding in the present research? If not please cite the source form where authors gain 60% of energy loss and conveyor path… by 25%.
8. Wrong format of equations numbering. Please follow the journal guidelines
9. Please add the citation of the article or other source (Figure 2)
10. Do equations 2-3,2-4, 2-5 (Line 147-149) authors' outcome or authors use somebodies results? If so please cite the source.
11. Please translate all headings in Table 3-1 into English. The format of Table 3-1 is wrong, it should be Table 3. Please follow the journal author instructions and guidelines.
12. Please edit Figure 7 and add numbers and units on X and Y axis.
13. Please provide a more detailed analysis of the data Figure 7-Figure 10. More detailed explanation of gained results is desired.
14. Reference on the Figure 12 is missing.
15. Please add graph the comparison and discussion of simulation and experimental results
16. It is not clear if the Figures7 – 10 are simulation or experimental results
17. The conclusion section is not separated from the main text. Please correct this and follow journal guidelines.
18. Authors didn’t follow the format of MDPI reference style for citing. It is highly recommended to to use a reference manager for citing. End Note or Mandalay should be the most convenient for that purpose.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
First of all, thank you very much for pointing out your questions, which are of great help to me. I have checked all the articles in accordance with your suggestions and made modifications one by one. Another point to explain is that some of the literature you mentioned is the comparative basis of reference learning, so the years are a little too long. Thanks again for your advice.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRound 2
The reviewer is confused with the author's decision to provide editing of the comments not in the MDPI Applied Science Journal template. It reduced the quality of the manuscript. Please make corrections to the MDPI Applied Science Journal template. Moreover, many comments from the previous round do not receive any author feedback. Please consider the list of comments below. If the authors disagree with the reviewer's comments, write your response. Many of the reviewer’s comments below are formed with references to version 1 because the authors didn’t respond to them, and it is impossible to refer to version 2, which, so far, is not in the journal template.
1. Can you please edit the sentence (Line 26-31). It is very long and hard to understand.
2. Please use a more up-to-date paper for the introduction section. Currently, 17 of 22 references are outdated and older than 5 years old. It is highly recommended that a more solid overview of earlier publications be provided to state the problem.
3. In the last paragraph of the introduction section, it is recommended to focus on what methods and techniques are utilized in the research specifically, not in general.
4. Is the sentence (Line 94-96) the author's finding in the present research? If not, please cite the source form where authors gain 60% of energy loss and conveyor path… by 25%.
5. Wrong format of equations numbering. Please follow the journal guidelines
6. Please add the citation of the article or other source (Figure 2)
7. Do equations 2- 3, 2- 4, 2-5 (Line 147-149) show the authors' outcomes, or do authors use somebody else's results? If so please cite the source.
8. Please translate all headings in Table 3-1 into English. The format of Table 3-1 is wrong, it should be Table 3. Please follow the journal author instructions and guidelines.
9. Please provide a more detailed analysis of the data Figure 7-Figure 10. More detailed explanation of the gained results is desired.
10. Please add a graph the comparison and discussion of the simulation and experimental results
11. It is not clear if the Figures7 – 10 are simulation or experimental results
12. The conclusion section is not separated from the main text. Please correct this and follow the journal guidelines.
13. The authors didn’t follow the format of MDPI reference style for citing. It is highly recommended that a reference manager be used for citing. End Note or Mandalay should be the most convenient for that purpose.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: Can you please edit the sentence (Line 26-31). It is very long and hard to understand.
Response 1:I have rewritten this paragraph.
Comment 2: Please use a more up-to-date paper for the introduction section. Currently, 17 of 22 references are outdated and older than 5 years old. It is highly recommended that a more solid overview of earlier publications be provided to state the problem.
Response 2:The cited articles have been updated and streamlined
Comment 3: In the last paragraph of the introduction section, it is recommended to focus on what methods and techniques are utilized in the research specifically, not in general.
Response 3:I have revised the introduction
Comment 4: Is the sentence (Line 94-96) the author's finding in the present research? If not, please cite the source form where authors gain 60% of energy loss and conveyor path… by 25%.
Response 4:Here is the author's research and has been revised and explained in the paper.
Comment 5:Wrong format of equations numbering. Please follow the journal guidelines.
Response 5:The equation numbering format has been modified.
Comment 6:Please add the citation of the article or other source (Figure 2).
Response 6:Here is the laboratory study for this article, and it has been revised in the article.
Comment 7:Do equations 2- 3, 2- 4, 2-5 (Line 147-149) show the authors' outcomes, or do authors use somebody else's results? If so please cite the source.
Response 7:It is the analysis of this paper, but it is not the focus of this part of the study without too much elaboration.
Comment 8: Please translate all headings in Table 3-1 into English. The format of Table 3-1 is wrong, it should be Table 3. Please follow the journal author instructions and guidelines.
Response 8:The format and content of the table have been changed.
Comment 9:Please provide a more detailed analysis of the data Figure 7-Figure 10. More detailed explanation of the gained results is desired.
Response 9:This part has been added to the elaboration analysis.
Comment 10:Please add a graph the comparison and discussion of the simulation and experimental results
Response 10:Each part has been analyzed.
Comment 11: It is not clear if the Figures7 – 10 are simulation or experimental results
Response 11:It's the result of simulation
Comment 12:The conclusion section is not separated from the main text. Please correct this and follow the journal guidelines.
Response 12:The above problems have been modified according to the requirements of the journal.
Comment 13:The authors didn’t follow the format of MDPI reference style for citing. It is highly recommended that a reference manager be used for citing. End Note or Mandalay should be the most convenient for that purpose.
Response 13:Changes have been made to the citation format required by the journal
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Please use a more up-to-date paper for the introduction section. For some reason author decided not to enlarge the number of literature sources but to reduce the outdated ones. In the previous version and now the introduction performs quite a poor scope of the overview.
2. Please add the citation Lines 72-80 in the Introduction section.
3. Is the sentence (Line 109-113) the author's finding in the present research? If not, please cite the source form where authors gain 60% of energy loss and conveyor path… by 25%. Sorry, the reviewer can not find the citation of the literature source that the authors used.
4. It is not still clear if the authors present their theory, equations, and graphs in Chapter 2.2 or the previous findings of other authors. Please specify it in the cover letter. In such a way comments 5,6 are still relevant.
5. Please add the citation of the article or other source (Figure 2)
6. Do equations 2, 3, 4, and 5 (Lines 147-149) show the authors' outcomes, or do authors use somebody else's results? If so please cite the source.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The changes have been made as requested, and this sentence (lines 109-113) was discovered by the author in this study. Chapter 2.2 refers to previous scholars' research and conducts research in conjunction with this article. Figure 2 shows the research analysis of this article.
