Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The analyzed article is of medium level from a scientific point of view, has limited applications (in the laboratory), and could be accepted for publication if the authors make the following improvements:

- to develop the introduction part, from which the necessity and opportunity of the researches can be clearly obtained;

- to present the optimal conditions from a technological point of view and according to them to be conceived and designed the experimental model;

- to establish research directions for a possible technological transfer in an industrial system.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Numerical simulation and analysis of feeding uniformity of viscous miscellaneous fish bait based on EDEM software” (ID: agriculture- 2175206). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to your comments can be found in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments: In order to improve the quality of the paper, the authors could clarify better some topics as described below. Also, should be interesting to discuss how those results could contribute to agriculture and the benefits to use those methods in the sector involved on subject of this paper.

line 8: means of "EDEM"?

Abstract: clarify the goal of the paper

Keywords: avoid using the same words from title

line 47: verify if you should include the year for "Qiu Yi et al." - the same for line 58

line 54: is there any alternative method available or just EDEM?

lines 61 and 63: the same from line 47

lines 70-72: verify if you should write in the past - eg: "are obtained/are carried out"

line 98: include a reference for the software - review it for all text

line 102: the same from line 70

line 108: confirm if should be "18 rpm" as you are describing about rotation

Table 1: should be "MPa"?

Figure 3: if it is a result should be described on topic of Results and Discussion

line 148-149: clarify the reason to choose those values for parameters

Table 3: should be "Group" on the first column?

line 179-180: discuss if the resulted angle is reliable for pratical conditions on industry

line 184-189: the same from line 148

line 188: "second" is repeated

Figure 8: clarify the reason to set y-axis as "Quality"

Are Figure 10 and Figure 12 the same?

Conclusion: focus to write it according to the goals of the paper

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Numerical simulation and analysis of feeding uniformity of viscous miscellaneous fish bait based on EDEM software” (ID: agriculture- 2175206). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to your comments can be found in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is generally prepared in a standard format with sound literary and technical presentation. It is well written in clear and concise manner. The figures and schemes are properly presented. The language is comprehensive and coherent while errors and inaccuracies are relatively rare.

 

However, the authors should make the following corrections to make the paper acceptable for further consideration and subsequent final acceptance :

 

Line 31:   Recast to read: ‘At present, it is difficult for the feeding equipment used in the market for crab aquaculture to achieve………’

Lines 35 and 36:   Please recast

Line 125: Change ‘chapter’ to ‘paper’

Lines 1Line 179 -180: Be specific about the number of times the accumulation angle was measured. Let this information be captured under materials and methods

Line 209-210: recast to read thus: ‘The simulation results presented in Figure 7 show that…...’

Line 280: recast to read thus: ‘two is getting increasingly larger’

Line 298: ‘Research and analysis of simulation and experimental results, there….’   Is this a sub-heading? If not, the sentence is incomplete and should be recast

Conclusions: The conclusions should be beefed up to bring out the benefits derivable from simulation results having been successfully validated by experimental results

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Numerical simulation and analysis of feeding uniformity of viscous miscellaneous fish bait based on EDEM software” (ID: agriculture- 2175206). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to your comments can be found in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx