Study on the Fragrant Pear-Picking Sequences Based on the Multiple Weighting Method

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-In the abstract the numbers of improvement refer to different numbers of pears on the tree. This is not clear until one have read the experiments section. Please clarify these numbers in the abstract.
- Fig2 is rather small
- Section 3 makes not clear how the sequence is. For the pick and place there is not clear why this is a TSP if the arm needs to go to the central drop point after each picking action. In this case the order of execution should not be relevant. Please make more clear how the picking sequence looks like for your exact setup. Do you have a movable drop point? I finally understood that the selection of the different IK solutions are the thing that can be optimized. Please make that clear earlier in before describing the algorithms.
-In section 4 AOC needs to be introduced in more detail. The equations are not explained well and the context is missing, which is necessary for understanding the equations. What is n in eqn. (5) and (6)? This description needs to be extended.
- Fig 8-10 can be put side by side to safe some space. They need a better caption describing the content. What are the red numbers and what are the circles with the numbers?
- The paragraph in between lines 240 - 262 needs to come earlier. This is a good description of the actual approach studied in the paper. Finally there is big question remaining for me. When you reduce the setup to have only one drop point where all pears have to go, where comes the influence of the picking order from? Are picked pears considdered in the collision model for the path planning and therefore other pears can be reached more easily?
Are the pre picking points and picking points depending on the order of picking?
You need to explain earlier that the actual planning problem arises from the 8 possible IK solutions for each of the fixed intermediate target points of the picking sequence. That is something different than a TSP since you select a subset of the nodes rather than reaching all. I did not understand if the ACO algorithm actually solves the same problem?
- Fig 12-14 and the respective tables are of minor relevance. you could reduce this to one example (e.g. the 10 pears plot) and save some space for the detailed descriptions of the algorithms.
- You need to make more clear what are the two methods you want to compare. Please define them clearly in two sections which come after the description of the problem and setup, which should be the same for both.
- Regarding your summary, the device for fruit storage actually was not part of that article. 

English must be checked and improved. Many articles are missing revealing your mother tongue.

Author Response

Honorable reviewers: Greetings! I apologize for not replying to the comments you made in time due to personal reasons! I have revised the article according to all the requirements you gave. Since there are too many changes to list them all, I have marked the changes in the document. Without changing the overall framework, the red parts are the parts that should be deleted, and the blue parts are the modified parts. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review the article, and I apologize for any inconvenience caused!(Please see the attachment) Wishing you all the best! Wenhong Ma 2023.7.24

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

o   The authors need to go through the entire manuscript to double-check the accuracy/consistency of each equation, table, figure, and reference and to ensure that English grammar errors are avoided.

o   In terms of quality of communication, a linguistic expert needs to review the paper and eliminate all grammatical errors. There are quite a lot of typos

o   How can the proposed solution be compared with other possible solutions?

o   The discussion of the results needs to include the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed algorithm.

o   Furthermore, where are the limitations of your study? Clarifying the study’s limitations allows the readers to better understand under which conditions the results should be interpreted. A clear description of the limitations of a study also shows that the researcher has a holistic understanding of his/her study. However, the authors fail to demonstrate this in their paper.

o   In terms of conclusion/implications, did your findings suggest a need for further research, what might this consist of, and how might such research extend or improve the current state of knowledge in this field? Are there any practical implications that need to be addressed? All these were not highlighted in the concluding remarks.

o   The conclusion section should not only elaborate the summary; the authors should clearly state the scientific value added, contribution, the applicability of your findings, limitation, and future studies. Therefore, major revision is needed for this section.

o   The authors need to go through the entire manuscript to double-check the accuracy/consistency of each equation, table, figure, and reference and to ensure that English grammar errors are avoided.

o   In terms of quality of communication, a linguistic expert needs to review the paper and eliminate all grammatical errors. There are quite a lot of typos

o   How can the proposed solution be compared with other possible solutions?

o   The discussion of the results needs to include the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed algorithm.

o   Furthermore, where are the limitations of your study? Clarifying the study’s limitations allows the readers to better understand under which conditions the results should be interpreted. A clear description of the limitations of a study also shows that the researcher has a holistic understanding of his/her study. However, the authors fail to demonstrate this in their paper.

o   In terms of conclusion/implications, did your findings suggest a need for further research, what might this consist of, and how might such research extend or improve the current state of knowledge in this field? Are there any practical implications that need to be addressed? All these were not highlighted in the concluding remarks.

o   The conclusion section should not only elaborate the summary; the authors should clearly state the scientific value added, contribution, the applicability of your findings, limitation, and future studies. Therefore, major revision is needed for this section.

Author Response

Honorable reviewers:

  Greetings! I apologize for not replying to the comments you made in time due to personal reasons! I have revised the article according to all the requirements you gave. Since there are too many changes to list them all, I have marked the changes in the document. Without changing the overall framework, the red parts are the parts that should be deleted, and the blue parts are the modified parts. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review the article, and I apologize for any inconvenience caused!(Please see the attachment)

   Wishing you all the best!

                                                                                                            Wenhong Ma                                                                                                                 2023.7.24
                                                                                        

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1-      The article needs language correction

2-      Define all variables used in the equations

3-      X-axis and Y-axis units are missing in the Figures.

4-      put a reference for equation 7

5-      In Table 6, I think Fragrant pear numbers 16 and 19 should be swapped

6-      In “The life time of both the inner and outer rotor of each joint of the robot arm is 1000 hours, and the rated speed of the inner and outer rotor is 1000 rpm and 30 rpm respectively, i.e. the maximum rotation angle of the inner and outer rotor is 2.16×10^10 and 6.48×10^8 respectively during the service life”, put a reference for the lifetime and the maximum rotation angle.

7-      Replace the summary section with the conclusion.  In conclusion, state the restrictions on the proposed model.  Also, In conclusion, state the recommended future work of the proposed model.

8-      Verify the proposed work results with another published work

 

 

The article needs language correction

Author Response

Honorable reviewers:

 

  Greetings! I apologize for not replying to the comments you made in time due to personal reasons! I have revised the article according to all the requirements you gave. Since there are too many changes to list them all, I have marked the changes in the document. Without changing the overall framework, the red parts are the parts that should be deleted, and the blue parts are the modified parts. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review the article, and I apologize for any inconvenience caused!(Please see the attachment)

   Wishing you all the best!

                                                                                                            Wenhong Ma                                                                                                                 2023.7.24

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf