Design and Performance Analysis of a Sunflower Cutting Table Based on the Principle of Manual Disk Pick-Up
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper designs an sunflower cutting table that can 11 greatly improve the operational performance of sunflower combine harvesters. The whole paper is organized well.
Several suggestions to improve the quality of this paper:
(1) line 14, first time showing "Xinjiang", please change to "Xinjiang, China" so readers can know the exact location of such study.
(2) Reference cited are limited to only the research in one country. Except references [2,7,10,11], all other 23 references are based on the study in one region. This lacks of comparison for similar studies in other regions of world, and also it will reduces the impact of the research. Please cite appropriate references for scholars' research in other regions on this topic.
(3) in the end of Section 1, the organization of this paper should be explained.
(4) Many minor typos/errors (here I just listed some):
lines 58,61,64: when refer to publications, you only need to mention the last name, for example, "Changjie Han et al." should be "Han et al.";
line 85, "," should be put in the end of line 84, do not use this to start a new line;
line 136, "Figure. 3" should "Figure 3" (many similar mistakes in the following pages);
line 267-268, formulation (4) is not properly numbered;
line 270, "Where" should "where";
line 393-394, formulation (9) is not input in mathematical enviroment, similarly for notations in line 387-391;
line 467, add "and" in front of "the height of ...";
line 468, add space in front of "The relationship ..."
Comments on the Quality of English Language
see typos/errors listed under "comments and Suggestions for Authors".
Author Response
Please check the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This article presents a region-specific sunflower harvesting machine cutter table, and conducts simulation analysis and field experiments. The overall study is systematic, but there are still many issues that need to be addressed:
1. Some scholars in the introduction only need their last names, and the positioning of the references is incorrect.
2. Is the use of ADAMS to simulate the sunflower harvesting process consistent with the actual harvesting process? For example, do sunflowers exhibit the same physical characteristics and states? Additionally, since harvesting is done continuously, is there an impact between different sunflower plants? How can this be compared and verified?
3. In Section 4, some intermediate processes should be added to the simulation for qualitative analysis; otherwise, the quantitative analysis lacks persuasiveness.
4. Some writing in the text is not standardized, such as "Figure. 4," and punctuation errors. It is recommended that the authors carefully review and revise the language.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please check the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This well written and informative work describes a relevant improvement in mechanized harvesting of sunflower. It includes simulations and field tests. I find it interesting for the journal Agriculture. Please find below my specific comments:
Please check the keywords, they should not repeat the words of the title.
LINE 35 please use ha instead of hm2
Please clarify the aim of the experiment at the end of the introduction: did you project a prototype, realize it and test it in the field? Or maybe you optimized the parameters of an ordinary commercial harvester? I apologize but it is not very clear to me.
Please use a standard structure for your manuscript: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions
LINE 338 Field test: please specify if you tested your prototype.
A discussion, comparing your findings with the current state of the art is completely missing. In my opinion an informative discussion, separated from the results, is needed to strengthen the novelty of your work.
LINE 457 Conclusions: I would add some comments about the potential practical impact of this technology and the future perspectives.
Thank you in advance for taking into consideration my comments and good luck for the publication of your manuscript.
Author Response
Please check the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors made satisfactory revision in this version, and it can be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript still has many imperfections, but it can be accepted in its current form.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I would like to thank the authors for the relevant improvements and for addressing my comments. The manuscript is suitable for publication in its present form.
