Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have established a human-robot collaboration (HRC) system based on the speed and separation monitoring paradigm. The supplement videos have shown the effectiveness of this system, and the interactions seem smooth. However, I have some concerns:

1.     What is the major theoretical contribution of this paper? It seems the authors use some existing methods or commercial devices to build the HRC system. Although it is a good engineering project, I am doubtful about its scientific contribution. The authors are suggested to illustrate more about the theoretical contribution of this paper.

2.     As the authors mention that a novel intention estimation algorithm is proposed, what is the advantage of the proposed methods when compared with the existing methods? The comparison analysis is missing in this paper.

3.     The structure of the Introduction can be improved by focusing on the major contribution of this paper. The literature review is insufficient and can be given in a separate section such as Section 2. More related methods should be reviewed, and the research gap should be pointed out. Moreover, the safety standards can be introduced as the preliminary of the proposed methodology rather than a subsection of the Introduction.

4.     Some literature reviews related to Industry 5.0 and human-robot collaboration can be cited, such as "Human-Cyber-Physical System for Industry 5.0: A Review From a Human-Centric Perspective," in IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, doi: 10.1109/TASE.2024.3360476.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript introduces a hybrid robot framework to calculate the minimum protective separation distance and adjust the robot speed to prevent collisions. Leveraging a robust architecture built upon ROS2, the authors have orchestrated process execution flows, yielding promising outcomes. While the research exhibits commendable preparation and technical sophistication, it is incumbent upon addressing several notable concerns:

1. There is a very obvious irregularity in the figure of this manuscript. In Figure 7, dark green line and light green line have very similar colors, which affects the reader's reading experience. The colors of purple line and violet line also have the same issue. The appropriate line type or color should be changed for the above issues.

 

2. In human-machine safety research, the response time of safety systems is an important parameter. This study should provide a detailed explanation of the time it takes for the robotic arm to react when it reaches the speed adjustment and stop thresholds.

3. There are already many research achievements in human-machine safety control technology. In order to highlight the uniqueness and superiority of this study, the author should conduct a comparative exploration between the method proposed in this paper and existing methods, such as deployment cost, algorithm complexity, application scope, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

applsci-3412264-peer-review-v1

This study focuses on implementing a hybrid robotic architecture for human-robot collaboration in shared workspaces, aiming to ensure safety and optimize productivity. The architecture utilizes the Speed and Separation Monitoring (SSM) collaborative scenario outlined in ISO/TS 15066 and integrates three modules: human tracking, intention estimation, and robot control. The proposed approach, based on the ROS2 framework, calculates protective separation distance and adjusts robot speed to prevent collisions while maximizing efficiency. By using real-time tracking and predictive modeling, the system minimizes risks and ensures human safety without compromising collaborative operations. The experimental results demonstrate improved performance in balancing safety and speed, enhancing human-robot collaboration in industrial environments

It is a good paper in my opinion. The results generated show the value of the work and its contribution. However, there are still some comment to improve the quality of the paper.

I think it worth rewriting the abstract section. The abstract contains several generalized statements, such as “maximizing efficiency” and “enhancing human-robot collaboration,” without providing specific details on how these outcomes were achieved or measured. Clarity and specificity are essential for understanding the actual impact of the proposed approach.

This study aims to implement a hybrid robotic architecture based on the Speed and Separation Monitoring (SSM) collaborative scenario outlined in ISO/TS 15066 to calculate the minimum protective separation distance and adjust robot speed to prevent collisions while optimizing productivity. Robotics and ISO are two different engineering and managerial concepts. It sounds to me interesting to see that authors are referring to ISO/TS 15066 for their metrics. It is mostly based on reference [13] that is a technical report. If possible, please provide more detail about what parts of [13] is more connected to the robotic system studied in this paper.

The caption of each figure is too long. On average, each figure caption is four lines. It would be nice if authors can make captions shorter. In addition, Figure 9 is located in the middle of conclusion section. It can be cause of confusion for a reader. It is better to move this figure to the previous page to let a reader know that it is not part of conclusion section.

Authors have mentioned that the method solves the risk of occlusions, and its robustness guarantees avoiding false positive detections. It is a proactive action in my opinion. There are also different types of occlusions in robotic workcells. It would be great if authors can further explain the proactive method with the focus of the type of occlusions the method can and cannot deal with. This gives a better picture of advantages and disadvantages of the outcomes to a reader.  

I suggest citing a couple of inspection and assembly papers as possible application of robotic systems: [a] Automated and cycle time optimized path planning for robot-based inspection systems, Procedia CIRP, 44, 377-382 [b] Notes on feasibility and optimality conditions of small-scale multifunction robotic cell scheduling problems with pickup restrictions, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 11, pp. 821-829, 2015

The use of English can be still better. Never use etc. at the end of a series that begins with for example, e.g., including, such as, and like. This is because these terms make etc. redundant (Page 13: e.g. inspection, assembly etc.).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further comment. The paper can be accepted now.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research exhibits commendable preparation and technical sophistication. The revised manuscript has made significant progress. The reading experience of readers has been enhanced. The response time of the security system, an important parameter, has been comprehensively elaborated. By comparison, the superiority and uniqueness of this study are highlighted.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have quickly checked the quality of the red highlighted paragraphs. It perfectly presents an Industry 5.0 perspective with human-robot collaboration. It maintains the efficiency of collaborative operations, reduces unnecessary robot stops and optimizes the workcell’s productivity. So, the paper can be accepted as it is.