Speed Control of Wheeled Mobile Robot by Nature-Inspired Social Spider Algorithm-Based PID Controller
, Chanduveetil Ahamed Saleel 5 and Sher Afghan Khan 6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper deals with an exciting topic. The article has been read carefully, and some minor issues have been highlighted in order to be considered by the author(s).
#1 What is the motivation of this paper?
#2 What is the contribution and novelty of this paper?
#3 What is the advantage of this paper?
#4 Which evaluation metrics did you used for comparison?
#5 It would be good if AI security issues would be reflected in the related work such as “Audio adversarial detection through classification score on speech recognition systems”.
Author Response
The authors thank the honorable reviewer for giving them an opportunity to incorporate the suggestions, thereby improving the quality of the paper. All the suggestions given by the reviewers have been included in the revised manuscript. Following are the reply to the suggestions/comments of the reviewer.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors after reviewing your manuscript, some recommendations are listed below
In the abstract.
The authors should improve the abstract by mentioning what is the research motivation, the goal, and the main findings.
The authors should use the standard notation to refer to PID gains using subscript Kp Ki Kd.
In the introduction.
The introduction should be improved.
The authors should reorganize sections 1 and 2. The literature review should be included as a part of the introduction. Also, the authors should give a conclusion of the literature review.
In methods section,
All equations must be closed using a (,) or (.),
In section 3.6. The authors should unify the notations, for example, on page 8, the authors used Kp, Ki, and Kd. .And, also, they used
Kp = Proportional gain
KI = integral gain
KD = Derivative gain
The authors should revise the notation in figure 3.
In the results section, the authors should include an error analysis.
The authors should review all figures in order to improve the quality of the work. Unify the size of the letter, moreover, some labels overlap with the values of the axes.
The authors should pull apart the results and discussion section.
In the conclusion section, the authors mentioned “A two wheeled mobile robot is designed,…”. From my point of view, the robot was not designed.
The authors should improve the conclusion section. Also, the authors need to revise the manuscript redaction.
Author Response
The authors thank the honorable reviewer for giving an opportunity to incorporate the suggestions, thereby improving the quality of the paper. All the suggestions given by the reviewers have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The work meets all the requirements, the content is disclosed in sufficient volume. However, in the analysis of research on scientific topics, it would be possible to make wider use of world experience in the field of mobile robotics, in particular, in the management and control of its movement and mobility.
Author Response
The authors thank the honorable reviewer for giving an opportunity to incorporate the suggestions, thereby improving the quality of the paper. All the suggestions given by the reviewers have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1) Improve the summaries, putting information on the result.
2) Discuss further the results found.
3) Adjust flowchart error.
4) Better graphics quality.
5) Improve English
Author Response
Authors thank the honorable reviewer for giving an opportunity to incorporate the suggestions, thereby improving the quality of paper. All the suggestions given by the reviewers have been incorporated in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I recommend the acceptance.
Author Response
The Authors are thankful to the honorable reviewer for the acceptance of the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, thank you to attend my concerns and sudgestions.
However, related to the following observation, I did not see the correction.
|
In the methods section, All equations must be closed using a (,) or (.), |
All equation has been corrected and put up as suggested by honorable reviewers. Page-5,6,7 |
Author Response
The Authors are thankful to the honorable reviewers for their valuable suggestions/comments as an opportunity for improving the quality of the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
A review carried out on the article improved the information in the abstract with the results achieved by the authors. Need some adjustments in English.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you to attend to my observation.
