Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an interesting topic. The quality of the current version of the paper is generally about average.

Follows a list of comments to help the authors to improve the paper quality.

Figures 1 and 2 (actually photos) I think are not necessary, but anyway, you may keep them if you insist.

Section 3 and subsection 3.1 start with just figures, with no (introductory or explanatory) text. Perhaps text and figures should be rearranged.

The text on lines 183-185 is not properly arranged.

Perhaps the Algorithm 1 should be placed after the point that is referenced (that is on line 323), or the reference on line 322 should be placed in the next section 4, prior to the Algorithm 1.

It seems there is a text and figure caption miss arrangement on lines 357-359.

The references to Figure 10, Algorithm 2 and Table 1 are not in proper place. They appear quite after these objects in the text.

In Table 1, the line spaces should be shorter. In addition, the values’ measurement units are missing for the parameters displayed.

In Table 2, the font size on field “obstacles” seems to be wrongly increased (compared to the rest of the text within the table).

Figures 13 and 14 are overlapping. Caption of Figure 13 is not in proper position.

On line 497, there is a reference to Figure 13 again (as on line 483). I am not sure if they are both correct and point to the same figure.

On line 429, it is not clear what for is used the Python. In other words, what kind of software was developed, for which purpose? Was it for implementing the algorithms?

The ROS simulation setup/environment used in the experiments is very briefly described on lines 503-505.

There are various grammatical and syntax errors. Please take care of them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a study addressing a relevant topic. I have comments:

1. The overall structure of the paper is adequate but there are areas where improvements are required. The introduction should be more focused and the related research section requires revision to better present the review and analysis (the description of algorithms should be in separate sections under M&M. The proposed method is introduced but should be made clearer.
2. The formatting of the manuscript is extremely poor and must be rectified with improved location of figures and removal of redundant white space.
3. The authors need to introduce improved discussion around future work and open research questions
4. The authors must provide improved discussion on practical managerial significance and application.

In summary, the paper presents an interesting and relevant study but the paper requires major revision to render it a suitable candidate for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

No further comments.

Author Response

To: Reviewer

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Path Planning of a Mechanical Arm Based on an Improved Artificial Potential Field and a Fast-Expanding Random Tree Hybrid Algorithm” (ID: algorithms-1435978). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made serious correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked with red in the paper. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to your comments are as follow. 

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

Junhui Yi (Corresponding author), Qingni Yuan (First author)

E-mail: qnyuan@gzu.edu.cn

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read the revised manuscript and the author response. The revisions do generally address the comments made in my review.

I note the use of the Word template and agree with the authors that this method is problematic (the problem lies in printer drivers - we always use LaTeX).

I would suggest the following:

1. The introduction is in reality both an introduction and a literature review. This would be better presented as two sections: (1) Introduction, and (2) Related Research.
2. The paragraphs are far too large and require revising using smaller paragraphs with more focus. This will improve the readability and the narrative.
3. The final section (Conclusions and Suggestions) would be better presented in two sections: (1) Discussion, and (2) Conclusions. Again this will improve the readability and the narrative.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf