Mechanism Cleaning of the Ear Canal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

could you add the paragraph about the limitations of the Illustration of Invented Model?

Author Response

Reviever 1

The authors appreciate the review carried out to improve the article.

Could you add the paragraph about the limitations of the Illustration of Invented Model?

Following your valuable suggestion, a paragraph on the limitations of the invention has been included in the conclusions section.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study. Here are some of my comments or suggestions:

 

1. What is the problem statement and main aim addressed by the research?

In the abstract, the authors state that “The main goal of this study is to develop a unique model for the ear cleaning free of irritation of discomfort especially for those patients who are possessing disorders of self-cleaning ear canal process”. I suggest to change the term from “main goal” to “main aim”.

 

In addition, the authors actually did not provide a clear problem statement. If the main aim is to develop such a model or design, what were the problems in existing designs or methods for ear cleaning? For instance, while it is stated that patients are “unable to clean their ear canal through a natural self-cleaning process”, what were the problems with “irrigation i.e. curettage and water pick, and syringing” as mentioned in the authors within the abstract? Please briefly highlight the challenges within the abstract just before the main aim to clarify the problem statement.

 

Nonetheless, the problem statement is clear in Section 2 under treatment procedures (lines 81-88 on irrigation conflicts, and also other parts in the sub-sections of Section 2).

 

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field, and if so, why?

The topic is very relevant because it touches on potential risk reduction in patient treatment for the ear canal cleaning procedures. However, the originality is still vague because the authors did not do an explicit patent literature search or invention search or product search. Such literature is important in design research when we contend on originality or novelty. I suggest that the authors create a section just for this patent literature search.

 

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The authors do not link their discussion with any prior published material. The discussion should at least peripherally or indirectly be linked with past research on similar inventions or methods in order to observe how the present invention stands among other pieces of research or patents.

 

4. What specific improvements could the authors consider regarding the methodology?

The justification of how the invention idea (section 3.1) came about is lacking in details. The authors should put in more effort in explaining the conceptualisation process. For example, what were the key features of this invention, and what makes this invention different from the other inventions. All I can see is the author stating the adverse effects from some methods, and a statement saying “proposed model is designed to overcome all of these adverse effects”, but I do not see how this statement links up with any key features or explanations specifically.

 

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

The conclusion should be separate from the discussion, and the major findings of the article should be pointed out, along with the limitations and directions for future research. The conclusion should also cover how the problem statement and main aim of study has been addressed.

 

6. Are the references appropriate?

There are too few references, let alone recent references (from the years 2020, 2021, and even 2022).

 

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables, figures, and English.

The tables and figures are fine. However, there are many grammar, sentence structure, and syntax errors in regard to English. I strongly recommend that the authors send the article for proofreading or editing through official platforms such as Editage or Enago. I believe MDPI Author Services also provides professional proofreading.

 

Thank you and all the best.

Author Response

Reviever 2

The authors appreciate the review carried out to improve the article.

1. What is the problem statement and main aim addressed by the research

In the abstract, the authors state that “The main goal of this study is to develop a unique model for the ear cleaning free of irritation or discomfort especially for those patients who are possessing disorders of self-cleaning ear canal process”. I suggest changing the term from “main goal” to “main aim”.

Thank you very much for the suggestion, it has been changed as proposed.

 

In addition, the authors actually did not provide a clear problem statement. If the main aim is to develop such a model or design, what were the problems in existing designs or methods for ear cleaning? For instance, while it is stated that patients are “unable to clean their ear canal through a natural self-cleaning process”, what were the problems with “irrigation i.e. curettage and water pick, and syringing” as mentioned in the authors within the abstract? Please briefly highlight the challenges within the abstract just before the main aim to clarify the problem statement.

 

Thank you very much for your recommendation. A description of the challenges for which the invention is proposed has been included in the introductory section.

Nonetheless, the problem statement is clear in Section 2 under treatment procedures (lines 81-88 on irrigation conflicts, and also other parts in the sub-sections of Section 2).

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field, and if so, why?

The topic is very relevant because it touches on potential risk reduction in patient treatment for the ear canal cleaning procedures. However, the originality is still vague because the authors did not do an explicit patent literature search or invention search or product search. Such literature is important in design research when we contend on originality or novelty. I suggest that the authors create a section just for this patent literature search.

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included, in the introduction section, details of some recent utility models in this field - cleaning of the ear canal.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The authors do not link their discussion with any prior published material. The discussion should at least peripherally or indirectly be linked with past research on similar inventions or methods in order to observe how the present invention stands among other pieces of research or patents.

Thank you very much for your recommendation. We have included, in the discussion section, the contribution of the invention based on previous publications, highlighting its strong points.

 

4. What specific improvements could the authors consider regarding the methodology?

The justification of how the invention idea (section 3.1) came about is lacking in details. The authors should put in more effort in explaining the conceptualisation process. For example, what were the key features of this invention, and what makes this invention different from the other inventions. All I can see is the author stating the adverse effects from some methods, and a statement saying “proposed model is designed to overcome all of these adverse effects”, but I do not see how this statement links up with any key features or explanations specifically.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included the invention’s key characteristics to overcome the adverse effects caused by other inventions.

 

 

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

The conclusion should be separate from the discussion, and the major findings of the article should be pointed out, along with the limitations and directions for future research. The conclusion should also cover how the problem statement and main aim of study has been addressed.

Thank you very much for your recommendation. A new section of conclusions has been drafted following your considerations, which we appreciate.

 

6. Are the references appropriate?

There are too few references, let alone recent references (from the years 2020, 2021, and even 2022).

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Used and updated references have been included.

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables, figures, and English.

The tables and figures are fine. However, there are many grammar, sentence structure, and syntax errors in regard to English. I strongly recommend that the authors send the article for proofreading or editing through official platforms such as Editage or Enago. I believe MDPI Author Services also provides professional proofreading

Thank you very much for your suggestion. An exhaustive review has been carried out by well qualified personnel.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved the quality of the manuscript significantly. The problem statement has been properly justified and formulated. There are now some comparisons with different inventions (patents, scholarly literature etc). The conclusion and discussion have now been separated and reported appropriately. 

Overall, the literature has been improved. However, while there are more citations of recent patents, there are only a few peer-reviewed journal papers cited from the years 2021 to 2022. Perhaps the authors can consider citing about 5-6 of them. Thank you and well done.