Next Article in Journal
Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization Genetic LQR Controller for Active Suspension
Previous Article in Journal
Designing Bio-Based Color Sensor from Myofibrillar-Protein-Based Edible Film Incorporated with Sappan Wood (Caesalpinia sappan L.) Extract for Smart Food Packaging
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Mechanical Performance Analysis and Experimental Study of Four-Star-Type Crank-Linkage Mechanism

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(14), 8202; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13148202
by Kai Chai *, Jingjun Lou and Yunsheng Yang
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(14), 8202; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13148202
Submission received: 10 June 2023 / Revised: 29 June 2023 / Accepted: 12 July 2023 / Published: 14 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Acoustics and Vibrations)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper analyzes the mechanical properties of the four-star type crank linkage mechanism. The modeling and analysis process are illustrated in details with abundant data support. However, there are still some problems needs to be improved.

(1) Overall, the paper focus the mechanics performance analysis of the mechanism, through modeling, simulation, and experimentation. But it seems to be limited to this. As a research paper, this is not enough. First of all, it is difficult to judge what is the innovation of this paper? Is this four-star type crank linkage mechanism novel? As the author wrote in the abstract, the purpose is to improve the performance of the mechanism. Then improvement methods should be proposed for the performance defects after analyzing the performance.

(2) Is the “specificity analysis” in the title appropriate? Specificity analysis is the concept of statistical analysis of product quality. It would be better to change to “mechanical performance analysis” or some other words.

(3) The introduction part of this paper is not sufficient and not very relevant to the content of this paper.

(4) The length of this paper is too long and the focus is not prominent. It is recommended to delete some contents and clarify the key content. For example, the contents of Fig.4.2 and Fig.4.3 do not make much sense.

The english language of this paper is acceptable. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors revised the manuscripts according to the comments and solved my questions. I have no more concerns.

Back to TopTop