The Teaching Application of the Backward Design Method in Chinese National Undergraduate Engineering Training Integration Ability Competition: Take the Double 8 Carbon-Free Car as an Example
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate the article "The Teaching Application of the Backward Design Method in 2
Chinese National Undergraduate Engineering Training Inter- 3
Gration Ability Competition: Take the Double 8 Carbon-Free 4
Car as an Example".
The article is interesting and addresses a current and relevant topic.
The research used a reverse analysis method for the trajectory of the double 8-shaped carbon-free car based on the space cam mechanism to design a carbon-free car structure.
The authors suggest that, compared with the traditional advanced design, this method was more accurate with solid feasibility and operability, which provided good technical support for designing the subsequent carbon-free car competition.
As suggestions for improvement, I present the following comments:
- It is important to highlight in greater depth why research is essential and what research gap it fills. The information is not clear to the reader.
- The discussions need to be much more explored, highlighting the practical and theoretical contributions of the research and how the article fills the gaps presented above.
- In the same way, the conclusions are very shallow. It is necessary to deepen the findings, highlighting the limitations of the research and suggestions for future research.
I congratulate the authors on the research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your efforts. Please see below some comments for your consideration:
Abstract – purpose, methods, findings, and recommendations/implications can be used as a framework to enhance the abstract.
p.1 l. 25 … is held instead of … was held since it has not stopped.
P1. l.28 … participated actively and regularly? If yes, authors should find a way to indicate that they’ve been participating actively and regularly.
P3, l. 69-75. All the bold statements and arguments made in the paragraph should be supported with references. Examples of the previous studies could also be added as references.
P3, l. 76-86. All the arguments should be justified using the extant literature and scholarly works (references).
P3, l.85 … is reserved. Is this correct as not changing and reserved is the same. Do you mean … is reversed? Meaning that the cam mechanism was changed or modified? Again if reversed is the correct word, it could be interpreted as going back to what it used to be before the current situation. So, this needs to be carefully checked and addressed appropriately.
P3, l89-94. This paragraph needs more clarifications and justifications using appropriate in-text citations and references. A clear explanation of what the backward or reversed design indicates, its elements and its clear applications, along with its application in this study will add value to the paper. The next paragraph (l.96-98) needs more explanations using the extant literature. In discussing what was done, authors should also consider injecting ideas on the research design/method employed, showing strategies used to collect and analyzed data in the study. Findings can then be presented in results/findings section before proceeding to the discussion section.
The discussion section needs a more robust discussion of the findings as a result of the approach used in this study with adequate comparison with other studies/scholars' works/findings.
Lastly, the implications of the study for important stakeholders, limitations of the study and suggestions for future studies should be highlighted.
Authors should edit the work thoroughly before resubmitting it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review again the article "The Teaching Application of the Backward Design Method in Chinese National Undergraduate Engineering Training Integration Ability Competition: Take the Double 8 Carbon-Free Car as an Example".
I believe that in this new version of the articles, the main points discussed were improved, namely:
- The authors highlighted in more depth why research is essential and what research gap it fills. The information became more apparent to the reader.
- The discussions were improved, highlighting the practical and theoretical contributions of the research and how the article fills the gaps presented above.
- The conclusions were also improved, with the deepening of the findings, the limitations of the research, and suggestions for future research.
I consider this new version ready for publication.
Author Response
Point 1: I consider this new version ready for publication.
Response 1: Thank you for acknowledging our work. We are committed to continuous improvement and striving for better research outcomes in the future.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for making some changes to the initial submission. Please see the comments below to further address concerns and enhance the paper:
Abstract – still needs to be enhanced. Authors may check other similar articles for adaptation. Purpose of the study, methods used in conducting the study, key findings of the study and conclusion/recommendations of the study can be used as a framework. It’s a good practice to stay away from what other studies found and focus on this study.
P 1, l 30-31. Many students from… instead of more and more students…participated actively on a regular basis. (add on a regular basis to show that they participate regularly)
P3, l82-89. Authors need to further clarify what the reverse design means and its elements. Authors may seek help if language is an issue so as to adequately understand what is expected or changes required.
Discussion. Authors can check previously published articles for more information on how discussion is done, checking whether the results correspond to previous studies, differ when compared to previous research, or shed new lights on the issues being explored.
Conclusion: The implications of the study for important stakeholders, limitations of the study and suggestions for future studies should be highlighted. Authors did not address these points.
Authors need help in revising the work and understanding some changes required.
Author Response
Point 1: Abstract–still needs to be enhanced. Authors may check other similar articles for adaptation. Purpose of the study, methods used in conducting the study, key findings of the study and conclusion/recommendations of the study can be used as a framework. It’s a good practice to stay away from what other studies found and focus on this study..
Response 1: Thanks for your comment. After discussion, considering that the competition is only held in China and not well-known globally, we thought it necessary to give a brief background introduction in the abstract. In addition, the four elements of purpose, method, result, and conclusion have been included in the abstract.
Point 2: P 1, l 30-31. Many students from… instead of more and more students…participated actively on a regular basis. (add on a regular basis to show that they participate regularly)
Response 2: We have revised this sentence.
Point 3: P3, l82-89. Authors need to further clarify what the reverse design means and its elements. Authors may seek help if language is an issue so as to adequately understand what is expected or changes required.
Response 3: We have added an explanation of the reverse design of a carbon-free car.
Point 4: Discussion. Authors can check previously published articles for more information on how discussion is done, checking whether the results correspond to previous studies, differ when compared to previous research, or shed new lights on the issues being explored.
Response 4: Since more complicated trajectories have appeared since 2021 (the trajectories given by the previous competition are simple, such as simple 8-shaped and double 8-shaped, and the function of walking along the predetermined trajectory can usually be realized by using the crank-link mechanism), the cam mechanism has received attention, so the relevant research is still in its infancy. Therefore, this part focuses on discussing the characteristics of this method and the forward design method, and makes a comparison.
Point 5: Conclusion: The implications of the study for important stakeholders, limitations of the study and suggestions for future studies should be highlighted. Authors did not address these points.
Response 5: We have added the promotion and application of this method, limitations, and suggestions for future research directions. This study can be extended to the application field of trackless robots, and this method must be implemented under the premise of determining the structure and key parameters of other parts. The impact of the structure and key parameters of other parts on this method can serve as a direction for future research.
