Design and Manufacture of a Flexible Pneumatic Soft Gripper
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The positions of figure-2 on the page is incorrect, it should be corrected.
Title 4.6, 4.7, 5.1 are placed wrong in line 314, 331 and 364 respectively. They should be corrected.
Figüre-48 and figure-18 should be centered on the page.
The positions of equations 1 ,2,3,4,5 and 6 on the page are incorrect, they should be corrected.
Sufficient tests have been made on the flexible gripper grip feature and the results have been given. But the amount of weight the gripper can lift has not been tested.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the manuscript.
We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and highlighted the revised parts, please see the attachment for details,thank you again.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is not well written. It is disorganized, difficult to read and to follow with many layout errors and many missing references.
Section 1
• The field of research is focused but the background is not fully described.
• Check the references. Many ones are missing (e.g. [1]) and wrong (e.g. [2]). Only the name of the first author should be reported as a reference link (e.g. [16]).
• I do not understand which are the innovations reported in this paper and the main differences with the state-of-the-art.
Section 2
· Line 92, other details should be provided for the 3D software and 3D printing process.
• Fig1-lines 99-100, layout error.
• Lines 142-150, what are "(2)" and "(3)"?
Section 3
· Check all the equation and the explanation of the symbol.
· Lines 165-166, layout error.
· Some references to equations are missing.
· Lines 186-1190, layout error.
Section 4
• Fig5, the scales are different and a comparison is difficult to be made.
• Fig6, the scale is missing.
• Lines 250-252, 1.0 mm and 1 mm have two different meanings. Check the text.
Section 5
• No details are given for the experimental setup.
• The determination of the fatigue limit is approximate and no details are provided to understand the correct execution of the tests.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the manuscript.
We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and highlighted the revised parts, please see the attachment for details, thanks again.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In this work, the authors present a soft gripper. The design principles are well described with numerical simulations are carried out carefully. Overall, this work has a high quality. To further strengthen the quality, I would suggest the author adding some comparison between the analytical predication, FEM, and experiments, e.g., the bending angles.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments on the manuscript.
We have revised the manuscript according to your comments and highlighted the revised parts, please see the attachment for details,thank you again.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors made the desired edits. It is suitable for printing as it is.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been sufficiently improved.
In my opinion, it can be considered for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments.
