A Study of Friction Nonlinearity and Compensation for Turntable Servo Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI kindly request that the authors review and incorporate all the suggestions and comments provided in the "Reviewer's Report" file. Implementing these revisions will further improve the quality and readability of the paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comments 1: In this section of the paper, the abbreviation "ADRC" is mentioned for the first time, and the reviewer requests that the authors provide the full meaning of this abbreviation immediately after its first occurrence. Although the meaning of the abbreviation is provided later in the paper, it is essential to include it at its first appearance in the text.
Response 1: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we gave the full meaning of ADRC at its first appearance.
Comments 2: In line 97 on page 3, the reviewer requests that the authors provide the meaning of the abbreviation PlD after its first use. The same applies to the abbreviation PSO in line 109.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. And I have added the meaning of PID and PSO in line 99 and 111 on page 3.
Comment 3: In line 167 on page 4, the authors explain the elements of Equation 2. The symbol for the Inertial weight is denoted by a Greek letter that is not mentioned in Equation 2, so the reviewer requests that the authors verify whether the symbol provided is correctly identified.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. And I have checked the Equation (2) again and found that we made a mistake in typing. Now I have corrected it.
Comments 4: In Table l on page 5, the label for the column content begins with a lowercase letter with the word "number." The reviewer asks the authors to check if it is necessary to use an capital letter.
Response 4: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we changed “N” as a capital letter.
Comment 5: In the same Table 1, the unit for torque is first mentioned with a dot between N and m. The reviewer requests that the authors review the notation of units in the paper to determine if a dot is needed or if it should simply be "Nm."
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. And I have checked again and made sure the dot is not needed so it’s deleted.
Comments 6: The diagrams in Figure 2 need to be of higher quality, with different line styles added to facilitate easier interpretation.
Response 6: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we improved the quality of the past Figure 2 (now Figure 3) and used dotted line to facilitate easier interpretation.
Comment 7: In Table 2, the unit for torque is again listed as "Nm" with a dot in between.
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. And we have noticed all the same mistakes in our paper and corrected them.
Comments 8: The diagram in Figure 3 needs to be of higher quality, with the introduction of different linestyles to improve clarity.
Response 8: We agree with this comment. Just as response 6, we have modified the line-styles to improve clarity and the quality.
Comment 9: In line 256 on page 8, the authors begin explaining the elements, presumably of Equation 7, as the equation number is missing. The same issue is repeated in line 267.
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. And we have added the equation number back now.
Comments 10: The diagrams in Figure 2 need to be of higher quality, with different line styles added to facilitate easier interpretation.
Response 10: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we improved the quality of the past Figure 2 (now Figure 3) and used dotted line to facilitate easier interpretation.
Comment 11: The diagrams in Figure 5 should be clearer, with improved quality and the use of different linestyles. The right diagram displays torque with the unit "'Nm" with a dot in between.
Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. And we have modified the figure by applying dotted lines and removing the dot between “Nm”.
Comments 12: The diagrams in Figure 6 are very difficult to interpret due to overlapping lines, which use different colors. These should also incorporate different line styles to enhance readability.
Response 12: We agree with this comment. We have modified the line-styles and given partial enlargement to improve clarity and the quality.
Comments 13: The block diagram in Figure 7 should be enlarged or, at the very least, have its labels increased in size. The diagram in Figure 7b needs to be larger and more readable, with the introduction of different line styles.
Response 13: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we enlarged past Figure 7(a) (now Figure 8(a)). Moreover, dotted line is added in past Figure 7(b) (now Figure 8(b)).
Comment 14: In Table 3 on page 11, the units for the parameters "Rated torque" and "Moment of inertia" are listed with dots between the letters. The reviewer requests that the authors check whether this notation for units is appropriate.
Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. And we have solved the problem of the dot between “Nm” by deleting all of them.
Comments 15: The reviewer also requests that the authors investigate why Figure 10 on page 12 appears before Figures 8 and 9. It is customary for figures in a paper to be presented in the order they are referenced
Response 15: We agree with this comment. And we are quite sorry for the wrong order of the pictures. When we modified our paper, we didn’t correct the number of the figures. And now we have solved the problem and we would make sure no similar mistakes will appear.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe abstract should contain some quantitive results, showing the performance of the proposed method over the literature.
The introduction should contain a deeper review of related works and list of contributions derived from this study.
Could you describe briefly why the PSO algorithm was used over a vast quantity of optimization methods?
Include a figure to represent variables used in (3).
Figure 2 describes experiments 1 and 2. This figure should be more descriptive, mentioning every detail of this experiment.
All equations should be double-checked.
In Section 4, a subsection focused on discussions is missing.
The literature should be updated, this study should supported with literature from the last five years selected from high-impact journals.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageA deep proofread is required.
Author Response
Comments 1: The abstract should contain some quantitive results, showing the performance of the proposed method over the literature.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. And I have added the quantitative results in line 23-25 on page 1 to show the performance improvement of our proposed method.
Comments 2: The introduction should contain a deeper review of related works and list of contributions derived from this study.
Response 2: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we added a deeper review of related works in line 112-115 on page 3. Moreover, the contributions are listed in line 130-134 on page 3 to further improve the introduction.
Comment 3: Could you describe briefly why the PSO algorithm was used over a vast quantity of optimization methods?
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. And I have added the description in line 160-165 on page 4 to show that the PSO converges quickly and meets the demands of dual-inertia system parameter identification.
Comments 4: Include a figure to represent variables used in (3).
Response 4: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we added Figure 2 on page 6 to explain the relationship between the different variables mentioned in (3).
Comment 5: Figure 2 describes experiments 1 and 2. This figure should be more descriptive, mentioning every detail of this experiment.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. And I have added the explanations to the past Figure 2 (now Figure 3) in line 230-233, 237-241 on page 7, which mentions almost every detail in the figure.
Comments 6: All equations should be double-checked.
Response 6: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we checked all the equations again.
Comment 7: In Section 4, a subsection focused on discussions is missing.
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. And I have added subsection 4.2 on page 16 to discuss about the results in the above simulations and experiments. Also, I think the discussion is a conclusion to Section 4.
Comments 8: The literature should be updated, this study should supported with literature from the last five years selected from high-impact journals.
Response 8: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we substituted some of the references such as reference 7-9, 14,18 and 19.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed al my previous remarks correctly. But, the revised and modified manuscript should contain the marked modifications.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe manuscript requires deep proofreading.
