Design and Parameter Optimization of Variable Speed Reel for Oilseed Rape Combine Harvester
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject is interesting for researchers in the field of agricultural engineering. This article contain sufficient information and will be useful for other researchers to repeat. I think this article is very innovative, but the following issues must be improved.
1. The abstract can contain more information, it can be improved.
2. Figure 1 is too small. The parts 7-10 cannot be distinguished.
3. All units mentioned in this article should be written with SI unit system.
4. The results are not discussed, discussion must be added.
5. The statistical methods to be applied in this article can be given in the Materials and Methods section.
Author Response
- The abstract can contain more information, it can be improved.
Response: According to the expert opinion, we have made amendments and additions.
- Figure 1 is too small. The parts 7-10 cannot be distinguished.
Response: We have revised as requested.
- All units mentioned in this article should be written with SI unit system.
Response: We have revised as requested.
- The results are not discussed, discussion must be added.
Response: According to the expert opinion, we have made amendments and additions.
- The statistical methods to be applied in this article can be given in the Materials and Methods section.
Response: According to the expert opinion, we have made amendments and additions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In order to reduce the problems of winding, picking and hanging of reels during harvesting, a variable speed anti-tangling reel mechanism was designed. The subject is interesting for researchers working in the field of agricultural engineering. Abstract is informative, material and methods contain sufficient information and will be useful for other researchers to repeat. I think the article is very innovative, although following issues exist, but it can be considered for publication after some minor modifications.
1. The term “variable speed reel” should be explained in more detail. In the experiments, the reel speeds were fixed at 25, 30, 35 r/min. I assume “a variable speed reel” is a reel which can adjust its speed automatically according to oil crop conditions.
2. Figure 1 size is too small. The parts 7-10 cannot be distinguished.
3. Figure 4, (a) (b) figures and their captions do not match.
4. There are some differences between the description of loss rate in the text and those defined in Figure 4 and Table 3.
5. There are some English and format mistakes. Please check the whole manuscript thoroughly and correct them, e.g., line 95, references [21-23] should be placed before "." and after "mechanisms", line 134, "cutting deck" should be replaced to "cutting table", the article "an cam-action reel" should be replaced to "a cam-action".
Author Response
- The term “variable speed reel” should be explained in more detail. In the experiments, the reel speeds were fixed at 25, 30, 35 r/min. I assume “a variable speed reel” is a reel which can adjust its speed automatically according to oil crop conditions.
Response: Starting from reducing the collision and reducing disturbance of rape silique in the process of rape harvest, we design a variable speed reel mechanism, the input speed is fixed, but the speed and attitude of the picker are variable. According to the expert opinion, we have made amendments and additions.
- Figure 1 size is too small. The parts 7-10 cannot be distinguished.
Response: Figure 1 size is too small，have been revised as requested.
- Figure 4, (a) (b) figures and their captions do not match.
Response: We have revised as requested.
- There are some differences between the description of loss rate in the text and those defined in Figure 4 and Table 3.
Response: We have revised as requested.
- There are some English and format mistakes. Please check the whole manuscript thoroughly and correct them, e.g., line 95, references [21-23] should be placed before "." and after "mechanisms", line 134, "cutting deck" should be replaced to "cutting table", the article "an cam-action reel" should be replaced to "a cam-action".
Response: According to the expert opinion, we have revised as requested.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The words in the title should not be written as keywords
replace r/min with min-1
All units mentioned in the article should be written with a superscript even in Figures
SI unit system must have a space between numbers and units
General technical drawing of oilseed rape combine harvester must be given in the article
Line 175-176 Wbs and Ws appears exponential in the row must be corrected
The results of the study are given but the results are not discussed in any way. There is a result and discussion title, but unfortunately there is no discussion. An article without discussion is far from scientific. Discussion must be added to the article
More numerical results should be given in Abstract
As far as I can see, all sources are the works of Chinese scientists, aren't there any researchers from other countries working on this subject?
Conclusion section can be improved
Introduction can be improved
In the Materials and Methods section, the statistical methods to be applied and the programmes used should be given.
How and with what speed and revolutions were measured, must be given in the article
What is the harvested area, what is the plant density there?
Author Response
1. The words in the title should not be written as keywords replace r/min with min-1. All units mentioned in the article should be written with a superscript even in Figures. SI unit system must have a space between numbers and units
Response: According to the expert opinion, we have revised as requested.
2. General technical drawing of oilseed rape combine harvester must be given in the article
Response: According to the expert opinion, we have made amendments and additions.
3. Line 175-176 Wbsand Wsappears exponential in the row must be corrected
Response: We have revised as requested.
4. The results of the study are given but the results are not discussed in any way. There is a result and discussion title, but unfortunately there is no discussion. An article without discussion is far from scientific. Discussion must be added to the article
Response: According to the expert opinion, we have made amendments and additions.
5.More numerical results should be given in Abstract. As far as I can see, all sources are the works of Chinese scientists, aren't there any researchers from other countries working on this subject? Conclusion section can be improved. Introduction can be improved. In the Materials and Methods section, the statistical methods to be applied and the programmes used should be given. How and with what speed and revolutions were measured, must be given in the article. What is the harvested area, what is the plant density there?
Response: According to the expert opinion, we have made amendments and additions.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Since the corrections made in the article are not indicated in different colours, it is not clear which changes the author has made and which changes the author has not made. I think the author should send the PDF to the referees showing the changes made in different colours. All criticisms are called made, added, corrected, but we need to see them in the article. I don't have to look for these changes. The author is obliged to show us the changes made.
As far as I can see, the words in the title are still included in the keywords. The words in the title should not be included in the keywords. No corrections have been made.
line 303 to 308 units are not written with a superscript. Needs to be corrected
Line 63 different writing styles
Figure 1 should be enlarged
Figure 2 should be enlarged
Figure 2 should be enlarged
Figure 5 a font size is different from b and c, should be corrected
Line 95 must be Figure 2, not Figure2
Table 2 should have the unit for forward speed one line down
Units in Figure 6 are not corrected, units should be written with a superscript
Still 27 of the 29 literatures in the article are Chinese researchers
There is still no discussion in the Result and discussion section. The results are not discussed with the results of previous studies. In my previous report, I said that there must be a discussion, but there is still no discussion. All the results found need to be discussed. Unfortunately, discussion is not possible with only 3 literatures.
Author Response
Thank you the expert's valuable suggestions. We have carefully read through the comments and made proper revisions. According to the expert opinion, we have made amendments and additions, our revise in appendix.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
