Optimizing Vibratory Sorting Machine of Crickets: Effects of Surface Friction, Oscillation Dynamics, and Energy Consumption

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is suitable to the scopes and objectives of this journal. And, I recommend the revise.

1. The abstract should be rewritten and the main description should be the proposed method of this study.
2. The structure of this study should be given in the introduction, which can provide helpful for reader..
3. Figure 1 should be improved. The elements of experimental platform should be plotted in the figure. And, the parameters can be given by symbol, which should be same with parameter table.
4. Where is real experiment platform? I cannot find the figure and it is an indispensable part of this study.
5. The theoretical model should be given in separate chapter. The requirements of design should be given clearly.
6. What is the method of calculation in this study? Because of the design is the important role in this study, the equations of kinematic, dynamic and strength should be given.
7. Results and discussion should be given tighter. It cannot be analyzed separately.
8. The language level should be improved.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the thorough, insightful, and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and care devoted to examining both the technical content and the presentation quality of our work. The Reviewer’s comments have significantly helped us improve the manuscript's scientific clarity, methodological transparency, and overall organization. In particular, we are grateful for the detailed suggestions regarding the abstract, the structure of the Introduction, the clarification of novelty, the improvement of Figure 1 and tables, and the closer integration between Results and Discussion. We have carefully addressed each point and revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes are highlighted in the revised version to facilitate review.

We truly value the Reviewer’s dedication and thoughtful critique, which have substantially strengthened the rigor, readability, and engineering relevance of this study. We believe the revised manuscript now presents a clearer, more robust, and more impactful contribution to the field of insect rearing and post-harvest processing.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

During the revision of the manuscript the following comments were done:

• Please clarify the novelty relative to existing mechanical sorting systems.
• Please explain the extent to which the roughness grades G0 – G5 reflect the actual surface conditions of farm equipment used in practice.
• Please include the frequency in which the sorting deck vibrates. The rotational speed of the motor was included in page 4.
• The title of the third column of Table 3 should be stated properly as in the discussion.
• Provide more detail on the cricket behaviour during COF testing. For example, discuss if crickets were allowed to actively walk or grip.
• Consider discussing the expected maintenance requirements.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the careful, insightful, and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort devoted to examining both the technical details and the practical relevance of the study. The Reviewer’s comments have been extremely valuable in helping us improve the clarity, rigor, and applicability of the work.

     In response to the suggestions, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to: (i) clarify the study’s novelty as a biotribology-guided optimization framework rather than the introduction of a new machine concept; (ii) justify the practical relevance of roughness grades G0–G5 as engineering proxies for surface finishes available in farm and industrial practice; (iii) explicitly report the deck vibration frequencies corresponding to 300, 325, and 350 rpm; (iv) correct and harmonize the column headings of Table 3 with the discussion; (v) clearly state that COF testing was conducted using non-living, post-harvest crickets, so the measurements reflect purely passive sliding behavior without active walking or gripping; and (vi) add a dedicated paragraph discussing the expected maintenance requirements and practical adoption of the system in farm environments.

    We are grateful for the Reviewer’s thoughtful critique and practical perspective, which have significantly strengthened the manuscript's scientific precision, transparency, and real-world relevance. We believe the revised version now presents a clearer and more robust contribution to the field of insect rearing and post-harvest processing.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All questions have been revised.