Design of Portable Exoskeleton Forearm for Rehabilitation of Monoparesis Patients Using Tendon Flexion Sensing Mechanism for Health Care Applications
, Channa Babar Ali 2,†, Zareena Kausar 1, Syed Yaseen Shah 3,†, Syed Aziz Shah 4,*,†, Jawad Ahmad 5, Muhammad Ali Imran 6 and Qammer Hussain Abbasi 6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors designed a portable exoskeleton forearm for rehabilitation patients using a tendon flexion sensing mechanism. The article is well structured, and the approached topic is to be appreciated considering the interdisciplinary character of the study. There are only minor remarks: - The references used in the introduction are primarily old. They mentioned, "... Publications that appeared in the period 2012 to 2019 were considered ...". However, the publications between 2017 and 2019 are missing. It is recommended to update the introduction with data from the last five years as much as possible. - In the present form, the introduction is monotonic. It is difficult for the reader to identify the unique contribution of this work. I would suggest to re-structure the introduction and highlight the unique contribution. - Detailed explanation and definitions are described well. Discussions (advantage and disadvantage) more about the proposed model is necessary. In the conclusion section, the limitations of the proposed method and future research statements are not described.Author Response
Dear respected Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper at hand describes the construction of an exoskeleton forearm, to be used with patients in health care applications. Although the engineering part is well done and described in the paper, there are major issues with the paper.
First, there is no evaluation of the work at hand. Not even a proof of concept is shown in the current article. Thus, it is only a description of a concept that might work but might also not work.
The introduction of the paper should be split into two sections: Introduction and related work. In its current version it is 2.5-page wall of text that needs better structure. Citation style needs to be adapted, too: “In the paper [X],…” is not proper style, the citation in [] should be like a footnote, while the text should contain information about the cited work.
Overall, the paper needs a major language edit.
That said, the paper is not ready for publication due to the missing evaluation. Other remarks could have been fixed in a major revision, but without testing the proposed system, the paper is not a shape to be published.
Author Response
Dear respected Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
