Review Reports
- André Cardoso1,
- Ana Colim1,2,* and
- Pedro Arezes1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Nor Kamaliana Binti Khamis Reviewer 2: Wan Hasrulnizzam Wan Mahmood Reviewer 3: Jer-Hao Chang
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript assesses the short-term effects of dual passive back-support exoskeletons (Auxivo and Htrius) on WMSD risk factors in logistics operations. Overall, the content is quite interesting, however there are a few recommendations need to be improved in order to be accepted.
1. Abstract - Quite confusing statement at result explanation: Based on the result, it indicates that Auxivo showing a slight advantage. However, when explains in details, it shows that Htrius provide more advatages. Please re-explain.
2. Introduction - Please put more references and explanation related to assessment of manual lifting task (details) in logistic industries.
3. Experimental procedure: Justify why choose these two type of exoskeletons?
4. Experimental procedure: Explain in details about question details
5. Experimental procedure: Explain what type of EMG device used in this study.
6. Results and discussion - based on the selection of participants, there are significant difference of height between the first and second participant. How you make sure that it will not influence the result? Please justify with relevant facts/references.
7. Results and discussion - Please reconfirm, is that each particpant only performed task at one workstation? If yes, why not both particpants did two workstations. Please justify with relevant facts/references.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is about an analysis of an ergonomic study that relates to WMSD for selected logistic operations. The overall are good. Most of the basic requirement information is well presented in the article.
The problem statement is clearly defined as well as the research methods. In addition, the study also considered the study ethics due to human personal data which is good practice for any ergonomic research.
The result is well structured and focuses on the PBS dan PBL which was clearly stated earlier.
Well done.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript proposed an interesting comparison of two kinds of back-support exoskeleton devices in logistics operations. However, some points need verification and better arguments for considering publication acceptance.
1. The readers cannot follow the exact transfer activities for the logistic tasks in Table 1： T1~T9. The authors are expected to describe the participant's starting position in free-standing (?), and take how much weight of the boxes, then perform what kinds of movements in the trunk and back, and finally end at which level of height. These details of task descriptions would also help the readers to judge the relevant REBA score. By the way, the box sizes and level height had better being reported.
2. Please describe the different features between the two exoskeleton devices. Let the readers understand why and what key points to focus on.
3. Because there were only two participants, it is better to introduce their background information one by one instead of average and standard deviation.
4. The same reason as above, Table 2~4 seemed to present the average data, which is not appropriate. I suggested the authors compare the various outcome measures of two devices by each participant per time. The results and discussion would be more persuasive.
5. The figures such as line charts or bar charts are encouraged to present the data in the tables to lead the readers to catch the differences between the devices, among the tasks, and in various questionnaire items.
6. The data of REBA group A and group B tended to confuse those who are not familiar with REBA. To report the final REBA scores and risk levels is sufficient and fulfill the value of the REBA analysis.
7. Please describe how and who to conduct the questionnaire and REBA.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsaccept as it it
Author Response
We are very thankful for your acceptance of our paper. Your valuable insights and constructive feedback have been instrumental in enhancing the quality of our work. We deeply appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript.
Thank you for your support and for contributing to the advancement of our research.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis revised manuscript still has some issues to consider before being accepted for publication.
1. Thank the authors reported the background of the two participants. However, the gender and height differences between them were significant. It is very inappropriate just to show their average data for results interpretation. Strictly speaking, all the data in figures and tables should be reported by each participant for comparing the two devices. At least, please the authors present the mean values with ranges, which indicated the original data of the two participants in all the tables and figures.
2. Please mark the index and unit of the Y coordinate in both figures in Figure 4.
3. In Table 2, since the authors have included a description of the REBA application, the final REBA scores and risk levels were sufficient for interpretation. The data of Group A and Group B were just the conversion process and tended to be useless and redundant because of no further discussion. Again, please the authors provide the final REBA scores with ranges by data of both participants, which are much more important than the data of Group A & B.
4. Just using the mean values for discussion and conclusion could be a lack of background consideration. The authors are suggested to discuss the basic human factors such as gender and height differences between the participants in logistics operations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have replied and revised most of my concerns and advice. However, this paper actually studied two logistics tasks, PBS and PBL, with only one subject for each task under two different exoskeleton back-support devices. Therefore, it is better categorized as a "case study" instead of a "pilot study" and "original research".
Author Response
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough review and valuable suggestions. We acknowledge your observation that our study, which examined two logistics tasks (PBS and PBL) with one subject per task under two different exoskeleton back-support devices, is better categorized as a "case study" rather than a "pilot study" or "original research." We accept your suggestion and will accordingly reclassify our paper as a case study.