Assessment of Exoskeletons for Work Activities: The Dilemma behind the Product

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

In Fig. 2 and also on others where there are bar graphs, different shades of blue are used, if they were different colors, it would be better readable.

Strictly scientific contribution is lacking in this article in my opinion. In the article, a survey of opinions on exoskeletons is carried out (perhaps a questionnaire, I don't know...) and some conclusions and possible recommendations for improving the situation are drawn.

This article may provide a wealth of information for exoskeleton manufacturers to improve their products, but it falls short in terms of scientific methodology. It is more of a status report than a scientific article.

I regret to admit that I do not recommend the publication of this otherwise interesting paper in Applied Science. At the same time, I would recommend the authors to find another journal in the publishing house's portfolio, where this article after some editing would be more suitable (perhaps with a consultation with the editor).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your review. I strive to connect my work with multidisciplinary fields to generate new content and insights. I regret that you do not recognize the scientific merit in this work, and I understand your perspective. I have made an effort to address your comments and would be grateful if you could take the time to review my article again. Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract effectively summarizes the study, offering a clear overview of its objectives and methods. However, I recommend including a brief overview of the results to provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the paper. Please comment on the findings (answer of the questions).

The introduction successfully develops the research question, setting a solid foundation for the study's exploration of exoskeleton development methods.

Please specify the final number of papers surveyed after filtering n both searches performed, as this information is essential for understanding the scope and depth of the literature review.

Research Question 1 is convincingly addressed, highlighting the necessity for a tailored development approach due to the absence of a comprehensive method adapted for exoskeletons in current literature.

Research Question 2 is also effectively answered, noting the inadequacy and accessibility issues of current evaluation tools, and advocating for improved acceptance methods.

These insights offer valuable considerations for developing exoskeletons that can make significant impacts in the market.

In the concluding section, I suggest expanding on the scope of future work. Addressing potential areas such as refining acceptance method, enhancing interdisciplinary collaboration, and validating proposed solutions could further advance the field of exoskeleton development.

Author Response

Please see my response in the attached Word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper discusses the paradox where despite the ergonomic benefits and reduced musculoskeletal disorders offered by exoskeletons, potential users often resist wearing them. It proposes a multidisciplinary examination of the development and evaluation methods to address this discrepancy and establish a new approach for future exoskeleton development.

 

·        To ensure the discussion incorporates the most current research and technological advancements, it would be beneficial to include more recent references from 2023 and 2024

·        the literature review methodology is detailed, but it would be beneficial to clarify the selection criteria for studies included in the review.

·        It would be beneficial to clarify the selection criteria for studies included in the review, particularly how they were assessed for quality and relevance to your research questions.

·        In the results, It could be strengthened by providing more examples of successful multidisciplinary approaches or case studies where such methods have led to better user acceptance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please refer to the attached Word document for my responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript needs to be modified to lower the Percent match of iThenticate report （to less than 20% ）.

 

Author Response

Thank you for this feedback. I suspect that the numerous direct quotes caused this high percentage. I have made several changes, and now it should be below 20%. Many thanks.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find the presented article very interesting and well-written, it provides a lot of possibilities for thought, especially for exoskeleton manufacturers regarding the acceptance of these products by end users.
However, it still seems to me like an overview article in which the authors summarize knowledge from the given field. Despite your considerable efforts, I find no scientific contribution in this article.

The main features that a scientific article in the field of technical sciences must meet:
 • Clearly defined objectives: The article must have clearly defined objectives and hypotheses that it seeks to verify or disprove.
The goal is not clearly defined in the article until somewhere on page 5 one can guess from the text that the goal is a literary review, but I don't know if it is really so.
 • Methodology: It must contain a detailed description of the methods and techniques used, including the experimental or computational procedure.
Somewhere around page 10, one can guess from the text that some form of meta-analysis of various questionnaire data obtained from the literature was carried out???
 • Quality literature: Citations and references to relevant scientific works and literature in the given field.
This point is fulfilled
 • Reproducibility of results: Results and procedures must be documented in sufficient detail so that they can be reproduced and verified by other scientists.
The results of such kind of "research" are very difficult to reproduce, as various subjective assessments play a large role
 • Discussion of results: Interpretation of results and their comparison with existing literature and theories.
This point can be considered partially fulfilled across several chapters
 • Originality: The contribution must bring new knowledge or be innovative
I consider the article to be original, even if its scientific contribution is debatable in my opinion.

Technical flaws in the article:
 • in Figure 2 and other similar ones, you replaced different shades of blue with different shades of grey, it did not improve the readability of these images much. I admit that I expected that it would be replaced with different colours so that the image in electronic form would be more readable (recognizable in colour), printed in black and white it will probably remain as illegible as it is now.
 • In Figure 3 are Notes 2 and Notes 3 listed the same texts, is that correct?
 • In Figure 3 Notes 5 "... darker line..." darker line is unfortunately not visible enough there

So sorry, but I can't recommend your paper for publication in this journal.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I understand your opinion and agree with your list of criteria for a scientific article. The aim of this article is to clearly highlight the dilemma in the development of exoskeletons based on scientific literature. My research demonstrates that the dilemma is multifaceted and stems from various sources, leading to the conclusion that a new development method specifically for this type of product is necessary. The current product development approaches (as a discipline with its own methods) are responsible for the lack of target achievement.

I am sorry that you disagree, but as you note, the scientific contribution is debatable, and that is exactly what I am trying to achieve—a discussion about the way we use scientific tools. As I have mentioned before (Focus on objective measurement), using questionnaires, motion capture, and biomechanical data often yields very good results, validating the high value for ergonomics and the user's health. However, the expected outcomes consistently fail to materialize. Therefore, with this article, We aim to bring new insights to scientists by arguing that it is insufficient to analyze and evaluate a product like an exoskeleton solely based on ""data"".

I appreciate your constructive feedback and hope that my revised article will better convey the intended message and scientific merit. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regarding the technical flaws in the article:

• Figure 2: All readers who have viewed the PDF have been able to recognize the different shades of grey without issue. Additionally, those who have printed the document have not had any problems distinguishing the shades either.
• Figure 3 Notes: Yes, Notes 2 and Notes 3 list the same texts, and this is correct.
• Figure 3 Note 5: Similar to Figure 2, readers have been able to recognize the darker line without issue. Ultimately, the editors or graphic designers will have to decide on any necessary changes, and I can make adjustments if required.

I appreciate your constructive feedback and hope that my revised article will better convey the intended message and scientific merit. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards,

Jérémy Lefint

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all the comments given.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your efforts and positive feedback. I am very happy that with your help I have made the article much more relevant.