Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a robot path planning method based on improved genetic algorithm and dynamic window approach. The presenting topic is very interesting as was able to solve the path planning problem faster and result in shorter path length compared to the traditional genetics algorithm.  The paper is written in good structure and clear description.

There are some comments for improving the paper:

 

1. It needs to explain the meaning of numbers inside the grid in the Figure 1.

2. Equations (2) and (3) are not written in the correct format, use triple dot (…)

3. Equation (10), representing a function with simple name, for example h instead of head, d instead of dedist, etc.

4. Put a unit on the running time in Tables 1 and 2.

5. Write equation (12) in the correct format.

 

Author Response

• It needs to explain the meaning of numbers inside the grid in the Figure 1.

Answer: Figure 1 represents a raster map. A raster map is a two-dimensional analog map representation of the physical space. It divides a flat map into a series of grids according to a certain scale and proportion, where a white grid indicates an area without obstacles, while a black grid indicates the presence of obstacles and the robot cannot operate in that area. The numbers in the grid in Fig. 1 are the numbering of the grids in the grid map, mainly for the convenience of coding the solution in the post-sequence algorithm program as well as for the convenient representation of the final solution path. A final planned global static path can be represented using a series of numbers in the grid.

• Equations (2) and (3) are not written in the correct format, use triple dot (…)

Answer: We have modified the formatting of equations (2) and (3) and their associated formulas.

• Equation (10), representing a function with simple name, for example h instead of head, d instead of dedist, etc.

Answer: We have modified the names of the functions in equation (10) and its related equations.

• Put a unit on the running time in Tables 1 and 2.

Answer: We have added seconds (s) as units to the running times in Tables 1 and 2.

• Write equation (12) in the correct format.

Answer: Revised

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The changes and corrections in the text, following the reviewers’ observations and suggestions, have been marked in blue.

 

1)  Introduction: The introduction seems to be quite weak in terms of the scientific manner. Conceptual definitions of the problem, background of the problem, solution methods, contributions of the study should be given in more detail. Also, it is necessary to give references from the literature to the precise statements in the introduction. For example, Page 1, line 42-44, In modern warehouses  and warehouses.

Answer: We have reworked the introduction with the following paragraphs: industry background, concept, technical background, approach to the solution, our contribution and structure. We have given references from the literature to the precise statements in the introduction.

2)  Related Work: At the end of this section, the contributions of this study to the

literature should be given clearly.

Answer: We have enriched the contribution of this article in lines 61-84.

3) The conclusion part seems to be quite weak. The problem and solution method

discussed in the study and the results obtained must be mentioned in the conclusion.

Furthermore, the future suggestions should be extended.

Answer: We have reformatted our conclusion section in lines 702-745 of the article.

4)  There are many typographical and grammatical errors in the study. Please review the work carefully for these errors.

Answer: We have reworked and improved the presentation of the article and had native English speaking experts help with grammatical and typographical errors in the article.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

See the attached file

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The changes and corrections in the text, following the reviewers’ observations and suggestions, have been marked in blue.

 

• There are numerous grammatical errors and typos. Please revise the entire paper to avoid such errors. A thorough proofreading is required.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion, we have asked native English speaking experts to make the changes, which are in our documentation.

• All numerical equations should be revised as some equations seem incorrect mathematically.

Answer: We checked the formulas one by one and modified the problems.

3)  Please avoid unnecessary descriptions in the abstract and instead write a concise and

meaningful abstract.

Answer: We have rewritten the abstract to make it more concise and clear.

 

• A bulk of citations has been added in the literature, such as [2-7], [8-11],and so on.

I don’t think all these references can give that mush information at once. Please avoid it. 

Answer: We have modified the references to make their position more precise.

• Equations (2),(3) are methodologically incorrect, such as should ,please revise the remaining as well. Also can be .

Answer: We have modified the relevant characters in equations (2) and (3) in lines 218-222.

• The related work section consists of several large paragraphs. All these paragraphs should be split into short and meaningful paragraphs so that the reader can easily read and understand.

Answer: We have rearranged the content of the paragraphs to make it easier for the reader to read.

• Figure 4 flow chart should be modified. The current one is not clear, as well as figures 5, 6, and 7.
• Most of the figures are not clear. Please add clear figures.
• Especially, in figure 25, the bottom drive board.

Answer: We have modified Figures 4,5,6,7,8. We have added Figure 25(d) to depict the bottom drive board in Figure 25.

• Please add a full stop (.) at the end of every caption.

Answer: Revised.

• In figures 9, 10, and 11. X and Y should axis should be represented with some parameter or what it indicates. Such as in figure 12.

Answer: Revised.

• Please avoid unnecessary descriptions and figures, as in some figures, the authors have just varied the number of iterations and added a new figure for it.

Answer: We removed Figure 20(b), Figure 21(b), and Figure 22(b). In addition, we deleted Fig. 23 and Fig. 24 because the data of Fig. 23 and Fig. 24 have been described in Table 2, in addition to the fact that Fig. 23 is very similar to Fig. 12 and Fig. 24 is very similar to Fig. 15. These changes make the text more brief.

• The technical depth of the paper is not adequate too. Please refine every section carefully.

Answer: We have tapped into the depth of the work to make it more meaningful.

• The flow of the paper is missing.

Answer: We have reworked the flow of the article to the best of our ability.

• The writing of the manuscript should be improved as well.

Answer: we have tried our best to revised the manuscript. And the manuscript is then checked by a native speaker working at similar subjects.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript can be accepted for publication in Sustainability with this version. Thank you to the authors for their responses and interest.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your recognition, it is a great honor to receive it!

Reviewer 3 Report

The S1,S2,S3,...,Sn should be corrected. Such as, in equation (3) and onward still not corrected.

 

Author Response

We have modified the  S1，S2，...,Sn in Equation 3 and its associated characters.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf