BARI: An Affordable Brain-Augmented Reality Interface to Support Human–Robot Collaboration in Assembly Tasks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article has potential for a very good article.

The subject is very actual and perspective – human-robot collaboration using Brain-Augmented Reality Interface. It is an application area of industry 4.0. Literature background and the reasons for this research are very well prepared and well-founded.

I have the following requests to improve the level of the article:

-          please define precisely the purpose, the goal of the article – in the Introduction can find only “This paper presents a system that  … “  and “The paper is organized as follows …” please define what is the contribution of the authors - stand design, system architecture, user interface or idea for usability scores or analyses of results – maybe it all together – precise it –

 “Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.S., and F.M.; methodology, A.S., F.M. and F.D.P.; software, J.F. and F.M.; validation, J.F., A.S. and F.M.; investigation, F.D.P.; resources, A.S. and F.D.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S. and F.M.; writing—review and editing, F.D.P. All authors           have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.”  - it does not answer who designed and made the working stand

Additional questions that require answers are:

-  1.         how long did the user work at the assembly stand  - 8h ?

2.         whether the efficiency of the assembly operation was compared with the use of the proposed interface and without its use - traditionally.

Author Response

Please see in the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of this paper show a Human-Robot Collaboration (HRC) platform using Augmented Reality and Brain Computer Interfaces to make some basic tasks. Although the paper seems interesting has some issues listed below:

[1] The paper requires English proofreading

[2] The scope of this paper is not attractive and interesting, the abstract is not clear it must be modified.

[3] The novelty of the article is unclear: there are already other reviews/surveys in the literature. In fact, in order to emphasize the novelty of the provided content, the most relevant reviews on the topic should be cited and the differential contributions of the delivered article (i.e., the contributions that cannot be found in other papers) should be highlighted.

[4] The paper must be fully developed - includes discussion, contribution, implication, and limitations.

[5] I would like to see a well-developed discussion (minimum two pages) comparing and contrasting solution/results presented in the work with existing work and then a subsection of it presenting contributions to theory/knowledge/literature (at least one to two paragraphs) and followed by a subsection on Implications for practice (at least one page). In these paragraphs authors should compare their research approach with previous research, citing references of others' research.

 

[6] The conclusion section must have a subsection on limitations and future research directions (one to two pages).

[7] Please, form the conclusion in the following manner: (i) First paragraph - summary of research and conclusion - e.g. In this paper... ; (ii) Second paragraph - comparison with previous research; (iii) Third paragraph - short description of practical implications; (iv) Fourth paragraph - summary of paper limitations and further implications.

Author Response

Please see in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No comments - I accept changes

Author Response

Please, see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the revisions which I feel have improved the manuscript. However, I am still kind of lost on the overall aim and the concrete novelty of the paper is not addressed. 

Overall, I have the impression that the presentation of the results is quite redundant and confusing; generally, a more concise and clear presentation should be pursued. Also, the presentation of results and interpretation of these results should not be intertwined; the latter should be presented in a discussion section.

Discussion is not relevant and the authors fail to clearly elaborate on the scientific and practical contributions. 

Author Response

Please, see the attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed all my comments. The paper could be published in this state.