Research on the Flexible Gradual Seed-Cleaning Method of the Brush-Type Single-Seed Soybean Planter
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.The schematic diagram on the right side of Figure 1 holds specific significance. However, its correlation with the text is not explicitly stated. Please provide an explanation and clarification in the text.
2.In Figure 2, should 'Filling the area' be modified to 'Filling area'?
3.The schematic on the left side of Figure 2 lacks meaningful content and does not effectively illustrate the working principle of the planter. It is advisable to remove it.
4.Similar to previous figures, please label ‘ω’ in Figure 5.
5.For Section 4.2, if feasible, please outline the process of determining the levels through single-factor experiments.
6.In Section 4.4.2, has the study conducted specific experiments, such as bench tests or field trials dedicated to planter performance validation? Please provide an explanation.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageImprove the English language, check the variables and formulas in the full text, whether the variables have been explained one by one.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe focus of the paper is on addressing issues related to excessive and insufficient sowing force, leading to under-seeding and over-seeding, respectively. The authors propose a progressive sowing method to mitigate these problems. However, the study has several significant shortcomings, which are as follows:
1. Introduction of the article is not appropriate and insufficient to indicate the importance of the study. In a separate paragraph, the authors should clearly state the study's practical significance. Especially new like-minded researchers should be aware of the importance of the study. How this study could result in a significant change among planter designers/manufacturers, etc.
2. The design of the seed metering unit should be presented along with standard terms. Design values must be mentioned in the manuscript.
3. Different sub-headings do not have proper meaning. It should be carefully written with proper meaning.
4. Statistical procedure is not properly presented. In a separate paragraph explain the Box-Behnken method indicating dependent and independent parameters.
5. "Box-Behnken central composite design theory, an orthogonal 347 experiment" is mentioned in the conclusion, but it is not discussed neither in the materials and methods nor in the results of the article. It must be properly presented in the article.
6. The parameters like leakage rate, over-cleaning rate etc. must be clearly defined along with their mathematical expressions.
7. The basis of the optimization condition should be mentioned. It must be mentioned which parameters are maximized or minimized along with their importance factor, lower and upper weights, and desirability.
8. The authors should state the study's practical implications and novelty. How the study is useful in terms of industry and society.
9. Conclusions should be based on data rather than general comments.
10. Further comments in the annotated paper attached.
11. These are some of the study's main concerns. For the time being, the paper is not acceptable in its current form. I strongly recommend that the authors conduct a second round of review if they carefully report all of the comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
In terms of the English language, this paper is poorly written. It is beneficial to revise or hire professional language editing services to provide readers with higher-quality content.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments:
1. Please go through the annotated document and try to correct some minor issues as given in the body of the paper.
2. Optimization conditions should be mentioned. It must be indicated which parameters are maximized or minimized along with their importance factor, lower and upper weights, and desirability.
3. Write the sentences in action form and avoid suggesting readers to do anything in your article (example: line 245).
4. Replace "rpm/min" with only "rpm". RPM= revolutions per minute.
5. write in the form of "Mp= leakage rate, %" in line 236.
6. Address all the comments in the annotated document.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Extensive editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
