Next Article in Journal
Effects of Metal Oxide Nanoparticles on Nitrous Oxide Emissions in Agriculture Soil
Next Article in Special Issue
Friction and Wear Properties of Wheat Straw Powder Third Body on Steel-Steel Friction Pair
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Analysis and Experiment on the Impact of Various Hook Angle Factors on Spindle Picking Performance
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Analysis and Evaluation of the Influence of Different Drum Forms of Peanut Harvester on Pod-Pickup Quality

Agriculture 2022, 12(6), 769; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12060769
by Bokai Wang 1,2, Fengwei Gu 1,2, Mingzhu Cao 1,2, Huanxiong Xie 1,2, Feng Wu 1,2, Baoliang Peng 1,2 and Zhichao Hu 1,2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Agriculture 2022, 12(6), 769; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12060769
Submission received: 4 April 2022 / Revised: 21 May 2022 / Accepted: 25 May 2022 / Published: 27 May 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a very interesting manuscript and the field work carried out gives value to the results obtained. Undoubtedly, the contribution to peanut cultivation is significant. 


Please consider the following:

  • In the discussion section add the limitations of the work and the scopes of the work.
  • In the results section, explain in detail the graphs presented as results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This article is about evaluation of three different types of peanut harvester drum forms. The mechanisms of these drum forms were provided and the analysis was done based on 2 varieties "Shanhua 9" and "Huayu22". The review showed quite little difference for crushed rate.

This article provided a quite thorough description of the mechanisms, and the analysis is based on standard approach. This evaluation provided a further in-depth understanding of these mechanisms, and will lead to a better iteration of harvesters. 

The minor things to fix are consistency, such as units (spaced or non-spaced? - 3.15 m or 3.15m?), Fig. or Figure in text. The Figure numbers are definitely not aligned with the text.

  • line 233 - Figure 2->Figure 4
  • line 260 - Figure 10->Figure 6 or Fig. 6
  • line 334 - Figure 2->Figure 7
  • line 365 - Figure 3->Figure 8 or Fig. 8
  • line 412 - Figure 3->Figure 8
  • line 417 - Figure 4->Figure 9 or Fig. 9
  • line 433 - Figure 4->Figure 9
  • line 436 - Figure 10->Figure 10 or Fig. 10
  • line 466 - Figure 5->Figure 10
  • line 471 - Figure 6->Figure 11 or Fig. 11
  • line 472 - Figure 7->Figure 12 or Fig. 12
  • line 494 - Figure 6->Figure 11
  • line 500 - Figure 7->Figure 12 

There are a couple of spelling mistakes as well (found one at line 192 - podpods which I believe is pods and another one is Huayu22were to be Huayu22 were on line 489). Figure 2 (meant to be 7) is not introduced in the text. Formulas were also not numbered.  I also suggest that "From Figure 4" on line 417 and "From fig. 5" on line 437 to be removed. Also, non-capital T instead for Transportation on line 441. Highly suggest to read through and carefully comb out the mistakes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop