Invention of a Medical Glove Durability Assessment Device

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for submitting your paper. The work done here draws attention to a significant subject devices which assess durability of gloves. I have found the paper to be interesting. However, several issues need to be addressed properly before the paper is being considered for publication. My comments including major and minor concerns are given below:

Please consider reviewing the abstract and highlight the novelty, major findings, and conclusions. I suggest reorganizing the abstract, highlighting the novelties introduced. The abstract should contain answers to the following questions:

What problem was studied and why is it important?

What methods were used?

What conclusions can be drawn from the results? (Please provide specific results and not generic ones).

The abstract must be improved. It should be expanded. Please use numbers or % terms to clearly shows us the results in your experimental work.

Please consider reporting on studies related to your work from mdpi journals.

The introduction is too short and requires signficant improvement, discuss about past studies, what they did and what they were their main findings, compare between those studies and explain how does your current work brings new knowledge and difference to the field.

The authors should add a list of nomenclature for all the Greek letters and symbols used in the study.

Combine any small paragraphs of 5 lines or less with other paragraphs to improve the readability of the manuscript.

Figure 1 add some text and arrows to tell the readers what they are looking at in this figure.

Figures 2-7 can be combined into one larger figure and better discussed together. Since there is minimal discussion and a lot of tables, the paper reads like tables and figures only with minimal info about the work done here. The authors should consider improving the flow of the article in that case.

Combine figures 10 and 11 and use (a) and (b) instead. Add some arrows and text.

Line 171 does not read well.

In figure 16 the time to failure for latex is quiet varied. What does that indicate? A large error in the machine or in the product itself? Also why not try different brands of latex gloves in order to verify such issues and eliminate any problems from the machine itself.

Combine figures 16 and 17.

Way too many figures, reduce the number to max 12 figures. This is a 13 page paper it should not have so many figures stacked on after the other.

I suggest the authors to combine the results and discussion sections in one.

The results are merely described and is limited to comparing the experimental observation and describing results. The authors are encouraged to include a more detailed results and discussion section and critically discuss the observations from this investigation with existing literature.

 

Conclusion can be expanded or perhaps consider using bullet points (1-2 bullet points) from each of the subsections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

    The paper describes the medical glove durability assessment device which has the potential to standardize the quality of medical gloves, no matter the material or manufacturer. Regardless of whether the glove is made of synthetic or natural materials, glove manufacturers have a responsibility to produce high-quality gloves with consistent in-use durability. 

    Overall, the results are technically sound, and the drawn conclusion is well supported by the experimental data. The referee recommends this manuscript for being published in the journal inventions as it is. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All questions answered and paper can be accepted, congratulations to authors