Design and Test of Automatic Feeding Device for Shed Pole of Small-Arched Insertion Machine
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript designed an automatic feeding device for shed pole of small arched insertion machine and tested it to solve the problems of low mechanisation degree and low building efficiency of China's small arched shed-building machinery. It is somewhat innovative. However, it still has a certain gap to meet publication standards and has the following specific issues.
1、 The introduction section needs to supplement relevant literature to explain the progress of related research and extract the specific problems that need to be addressed. Furthermore, the main points of each paragraph need to be reorganized, with attention paid to the logical connections between paragraphs.
2、It lacks in-depth analysis of the results combined with previous related research in the results and discussion section.
3、The shed pole pitching pass rate was the only evaluation index to evaluate the performance of the designed device, but it does not explain why only this index was chosen. Is this single one sufficient for evaluation? I have my doubts.
4、In the Field Tests section, the authors should use charts or tables to demonstrate the operational effectiveness, rather than a single data（95.27%）. The figures presented in this part are merely device photos in the field. Why are there no figures that reflect the operational effectiveness? A figure that demonstrates the operational effectiveness should list.
5、There are many long sentences in this paper, which may cause ambiguity. Such as Line 85-90, and so on, please review and revise carefully.
6、There are some Chinglish expressions in this manuscript, such as Line72-74 and so on, please review and revise carefully.
7、 There are many small mistakes throughout the text, Line 15, Line 88, Line 109, and so on. Also, the font size of the paragraph on page six is different from the paragraphs on other pages. Please review and revise carefully. This is important; details reflect the attitude.
8、The references are inconsistent in format and contain mistakes. Please review and revise carefully.
9、The readability of the paper needs to be improved.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageneed to improve
Author Response
1.The introduction section needs to supplement relevant literature to explain the progress of related research and extract the specific problems that need to be addressed. Furthermore, the main points of each paragraph need to be reorganized, with attention paid to the logical connections between paragraphs.
The introduction section has been modified accordingly to repair the research progress and problems and to add relevant literature.
2.It lacks in-depth analysis of the results combined with previous related research in the results and discussion section.
The results have been analyzed in the Results and Discussion section in the context of previous related studies.()
3.The shed pole pitching pass rate was the only evaluation index to evaluate the performance of the designed device, but it does not explain why only this index was chosen. Is this single one sufficient for evaluation? I have my doubts.
It has been explained why the pitching pass rate is used as the only evaluation metric for evaluating the performance of the device.
4.In the Field Tests section, the authors should use charts or tables to demonstrate the operational effectiveness, rather than a single data（95.27%）. The figures presented in this part are merely device photos in the field. Why are there no figures that reflect the operational effectiveness? A figure that demonstrates the operational effectiveness should list.
Specific data have been listed in the "Field Tests" section.
5.There are many long sentences in this paper, which may cause ambiguity. Such as Line 85-90, and so on, please review and revise carefully.
Changes have been made to long sentences.
6.There are some Chinglish expressions in this manuscript, such as Line72-74 and so on, please review and revise carefully.
Changes have been made to Chinglish.
7.There are many small mistakes throughout the text, Line 15, Line 88, Line 109, and so on. Also, the font size of the paragraph on page six is different from the paragraphs on other pages. Please review and revise carefully. This is important; details reflect the attitude.
Changes have been made to small mistakes.
8.The references are inconsistent in format and contain mistakes. Please review and revise carefully.
Changes have been made to the references.
9.The readability of the paper needs to be improved.
The paper has been touched up and revised。
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors In this study, the authors have designed an automatic feeding device for shed poles. To test the shed pole pitching pass rate of the device, the authors adopted a three-17 factor, three-level experimental design. The results showed that qualification rate of the trellis reached 95.36% at the optimal conditions. However, the manuscript needs major revisions before publication in Agriculture. Comments are summarized as below: 1. The manuscript addresses an important issue in the mechanization of small arched greenhouse construction. The novelty of the proposed automatic feeding device compared to existing solutions in the field should be elaborated in the Introduction. 2. The design and testing of the automatic feeding device are well described. However, additional technical details, such as materials used for the device's construction and the rationale behind these choices, could be included. 3. The use of a Box-Behnken design for the experiments is appropriate. It would be helpful to include a discussion on why this design was chosen over other experimental designs. 4. The authors should provide more insight into the optimization criteria and constraints used in the Design-Expert software to arrive at the final parameter settings. 5. The manuscript discusses the potential of the device to improve operational efficiency. The scalability of the device for different sizes of greenhouses or different agricultural settings could be discussed according to experiments or related reference. 6. What about the durability or maintenance requirements of the automatic feeding device? 7. A discussion on future work, including potential improvements to the device could be explored. 8. The language should be revised and typos should be corrected. Some reference in a mess (such as No. 12, 14, 19, 20, 24) should be revised. Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language should be revised and typos should be corrected.
Author Response
1.The manuscript addresses an important issue in the mechanization of small arched greenhouse construction. The novelty of the proposed automatic feeding device compared to existing solutions in the field should be elaborated in the Introduction.
The novelty of the proposed automatic feeding device compared to existing solutions in the field is described in the Introduction.
2. The design and testing of the automatic feeding device are well described. However, additional technical details, such as materials used for the device's construction and the rationale behind these choices, could be included.
The materials used in the construction of the device and the reasons for their selection are described below in the specific description of the key components.
3. The use of a Box-Behnken design for the experiments is appropriate. It would be helpful to include a discussion on why this design was chosen over other experimental designs.
Due to the nonlinear effects of pickup snap ring speed (A), shed pole drop height (B) and pickup snap ring spacing (C) on the passing rate of pole casting. A three-factor three-level Box–Behnken response surface method was used to investigate the influence of these factors on the qualification rate.
4. The authors should provide more insight into the optimization criteria and constraints used in the Design-Expert software to arrive at the final parameter settings.
According to the effect of the interaction between the two factors of pickup ring spacing speed, trellis pole drop height and pickup ring spacing on the passing rate of pole casting, the value intervals of pickup ring speed, trellis pole drop height and pickup ring spacing were determined.The constraints of Equation (11) were established to achieve the highest pitching pass rate.
5. The manuscript discusses the potential of the device to improve operational efficiency. The scalability of the device for different sizes of greenhouses or different agricultural settings could be discussed according to experiments or related reference.
This section has been added.
6. What about the durability or maintenance requirements of the automatic feeding device?
The device is currently in the research and development stage and has not yet been widely used in actual production, so the durability needs to be further observed。
7. A discussion on future work, including potential improvements to the device could be explored.
This part of the discussion has been added.
8. The language should be revised and typos should be corrected. Some reference in a mess (such as No. 12, 14, 19, 20, 24) should be revised.
Changes have been made to the references.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the research is interesting but these are my suggestions to improve the work
1. the introduction can benefit from recent literature and the novelty of the research should be clearly stated
2. in the description of the equipment a table should be presented listing the parts ands dimensions, wether locally fabricated or purchased
3. the research involved experimental readings, so uncertainty should be presented
4 what are the response factors in equation 10?
5. discuss your work with other literatures
6. add perspective to the conclusion
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English needs moderate improvement
Author Response
1.the introduction can benefit from recent literature and the novelty of the research should be clearly stated
The introduction has been modified to indicate the novelty of the study.
2. in the description of the equipment a table should be presented listing the parts ands dimensions, wether locally fabricated or purchased
Due to the large number of components involved and the specific selection of key components, which is reflected below, a table has not been provided.
3. the research involved experimental readings, so uncertainty should be presented
Uncertainty in experimental readings has been accounted for.
4 what are the response factors in equation 10?
The response factors in equation 10 is the pitching pass rate.
5. discuss your work with other literatures
Modified in the text.
6. add perspective to the conclusion
Modified in the text.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has mostly addressed the issues raised, but they haven't explained whether the use of the images for the fourth issue is appropriate. Also, the references have some formatting issues that need to be fixed.
When replying to reviewers' comments, it's a good idea for the author to point out where the changes have been made in the article.
Author Response
The author has mostly addressed the issues raised, but they haven't explained whether the use of the images for the fourth issue is appropriate. Also, the references have some formatting issues that need to be fixed.
During the operation of the machine, we are manually tracking and recording the total number of casts as well as the number of successful casts and the number of missed casts. The casting action is not continuous, and the operation of the machine can be shown on video, which is difficult to be represented by a single photo. Therefore, only photos of the machine at the test site are shown.
The format of the references has been revised.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised the manuscript and it can be accepted now.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNone.
Author Response
Thank you for your review.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsi think the authors has modified the manuscript
Author Response
Thank you for your review.
