Review Reports
- Hao Hu1,†,
- Deping Wang2,† and
- Yudong Wu3,*
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the abstract, it describes well the work performed, the progress and steps of the development and research.
The main goal of the research is to examine the NVH (Noise, Vibration, and Harshness) characteristics of micro motors used in vehicles, and to improve these characteristics.
In the introduction, the authors review the research results of others on the topic during a detailed literature review, and describe the goals, methods and results of the present research divided into sections.
In the following sections, the authors present the research, the development steps, the applied methods, and the obtained results in detail.
The structure of the manuscript is appropriate, well edited, the topic of the research is novel and interesting. In my opinion, it can be published in the present form.
Author Response
非常感谢您花时间审阅这份稿件。以下是详细的回复和重新提交的文件中突出显示的相应修订/更正，修订稿中的其他更改以红色突出显示。请参阅附件。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper discusses a very important aspect of Optimization of Vibration Characteristics of Automotive Micro-Motors
The study is well organized and the paper is well written.
The quality of the pictures and figures is high, and the technical roadmap is very clear and beautiful.
The experimental validation is also adequate.
I suggest this work could be accepted after minor revisions, and I have only two suggestions:
1) As I see in Figure 7, the motor seems to be placed directly on the desktop without being fixed. So, is there a fix between the motor and desktop? The fixing method between the motor and the foundation will directly affect the vibration characteristics, and this should be considered in this study.
2) The language of this paper can be improved.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Below are detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files, with other changes highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI suggest the following improvements:
- please try to rephrase the phrase from row 22 - "the module is improved to improve"
- try to not use capital letters in the middle of a sentence - rows 139 - 142
- fig 1 is too small, a part of the text is undecipherable
- please explain who is "p", "q", the abbreviation "s.t" - after or before equation 1
- explain all the abbreviations when they first appear - for example CNN
- try to put the figures after they are referred in the text
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Below are detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files, with other changes highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf