Inverse Kinematics for Serial Robot Manipulators by Particle Swarm Optimization and POSIX Threads Implementation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper’s overall quality is good, but there are still some areas to improve. The review comments are illustrated as following.
1. The description of research questions in abstract are not accurate.
2. There are rare theoretic supports of PSO algorithm in this paper. You should add some knowledge about theory
3. You should not only conclude applied techniques and results, but also use comparative method to highlight this paper’s own findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper needs major improvements .All suggestions are attached in the word file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the manuscript investigates the way in which particle swarm optimization methods can be applied in solving inverse kinematics problems for general-purpose serial robot manipulators, using the Baxter robot as an experimental platform for demonstration. The content of the manuscript is of interest, but in its present form it is not recommended for acceptance and needs to be revised and supplemented.
(1) The novelty of the proposed particle swarm optimization inverse kinematics approach needs to be highlighted in the manuscript, and I do not see anything novel in this approach from the manuscript.
(2) There is a need to highlight the difficulties of computing the Baxter robot model studied in the manuscript and to highlight the theoretical value of the proposed method.
(3) Why did you choose the particle swarm optimization algorithm and what are its advantages over other optimization algorithms for the mentioned problem?
(4) What are the advantages of the research presented in the manuscript compared to other research in this field?
(5) The manuscript should be supplemented with relevant classical experimental examples and compared with other methods to show the advantages of the proposed method.
(6) The shading in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 7 in the manuscript should be removed, and it is recommended to use the export function of MATLAB.
(7) The formatting in the manuscript should be re-edited according to the template.
(8) The contribution of the manuscript and future research prospects are not highlighted in the conclusion of the manuscript, and I suggest that the conclusion section should be rewritten.
(9) Most of the references cited in the manuscript are too old, and the methods and conclusions in the manuscript should be compared and discussed with recent research findings.
(10) The readability of the manuscript is poor, the quality of the images should be enhanced, and the logic and flow of the algorithm should be represented in a more intuitive way.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
PFA comments with file name as Revised Reviewer comment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this revised paper, the authors addressed my previous comments well, and it is almost accepted for publication. However, there are still a few minor issues in this version:
1). I suggest the authors should add a related work section to this paper.
2). I suggest the authors should introduce all symbols in a table before introducing those equations.
3). In experimental section, the authors should introduce more details about the experimental setup.
4) The figures is still not clear enough.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
