Parameters Optimization and Test of an Arc-Shaped Nail-Tooth Roller-Type Recovery Machine for Sowing Layer Residual Film
, Jingbin Li 1,2,3,*, Xianfei Wang 1,2,3, Yongman Zhao 1,2,3, Shuaikang Xue 1,2,3 and Zipeng Su 1,2,3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The presented study can contribute scientifically in the area of ​​agricultural machinery and implements.
Authors need to better demonstrate the importance of the work and the problem of study in the Introduction, instead of presenting a review, mainly in the second and third paragraphs.
In addition to presenting, justifying the choices of the parameters evaluated.
In Table 1, justify the choices of soil characteristics for the experiment?
Make it clear how the comparisons were made. Was there repetition of the experiments to prove the results? Explain in detail. How many repetitions were made to validate the field study?
The results were not very little discussed. In contrast, the conclusions seem to be an extension of the results and discussion. The conclusions must respond to the objectives and scientific hypotheses, punctually.
In general, the manuscript needs to undergo extensive correction: alignment of the study problem, justification of experimental choices and demonstration of how the results were compared, as well as rewriting of conclusions.
References are ok.
Author Response
Point 1: Authors need to better demonstrate the importance of the work and the problem of study in the Introduction, instead of presenting a review, mainly in the second and third paragraphs.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. According to your comment, we have revised the "1. Introduction" part and marked it in lines 48-69 of the manuscript.
Point 2: In addition to presenting, justifying the choices of the parameters evaluated. In Table 1, justify the choices of soil characteristics for the experiment?
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. According to the team's research results "Yang y.; Wen B.; Ding L.; Li L.; Chen X.; Li J. soil particle modeling and parameter calibration for use with discrete element method. Transactions of the ASABE 2021,64, 2011-2023.", and combined with references 8, 9, and 19- 22, the author believes that the design of the parameters in Table 1 is reasonable.
Point 3: Make it clear how the comparisons were made. Was there repetition of the experiments to prove the results? Explain in detail. How many repetitions were made to validate the field study?
Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, we have completed the modification in "3.3.2. Field verification test " in the manuscript, as shown in lines 322-332.
Point 4: The results were not very little discussed. In contrast, the conclusions seem to be an extension of the results and discussion. The conclusions must respond to the objectives and scientific hypotheses, punctually.
Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. According to your suggestion, "3.4 Discussion" has been added, and the conclusion has been revised again, as shown in lines 340-376.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments are placed on the article file, which is sent to the attachment. It has also been highlighted in some cases. Please be taken into consideration.
Three important cases are as follows:
1- On-Page 5/13: Please, define this symbol. Also, this parameter is described.
2- Materials and methods, Page 8/13: Please, present the method of determining of Response index (dependent variable) clearly.
3- Please, Present the method of measurement of the soil hilling quantity in the field tests.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Point 1: On-Page 5/13: Please, define this symbol. Also, this parameter is described.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have completed the modification of λ (speed ratio) in "2.2.3 Determination of operating parameters of gear roller device" in the manuscript.
Point 2: Materials and methods, Page 8/13: Please, present the method of determining of Response index (dependent variable) clearly.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have completed the modification in "2.3.3. Design of simulation test" in the text, as shown in lines 243-251.
Point 3: Please, Present the method of measurement of the soil hilling quantity in the field tests.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have completed the revision in "3.3.2. Field verification test" in the manuscript according to your suggestions, as shown in lines 322-332.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors realized most of the corrections requested, in this way, the manuscript can be accepted.
