Simultaneous Trunk and Canopy Shaking Improves Table Olive Harvester Efficiency versus Trunk Shaking Alone

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

    The main content of the article is to compare the performance of the new olive shaker with the existing one. The problem is that there is no obvious innovation in structural design, frequency monitoring method, experimental design, and data analysis, which cannot reflect the author's own research innovation.  Describing the performance of different shakers with just one experiment cannot support an article.

1. In the background introduction, the article constantly emphasizes that the existing shakers need to improve efficiency, but the introduction of the structure is very lacking in the article, resulting in the incompatibility between the front and back.

2. After comparing the performance of different shakers, the reasons for the superior performance of the canopy shaker are not analyzed, and it is impossible to show where the innovation of the design lies.

3. In the conclusion, there is no statistical conclusion to support the superiority of the equipment.

4. Since it is mentioned in the introduction that the main method of olive harvesting is manual harvesting, the comparison of the efficiency and harvest rate with manual picking should be added in the experiment.

5. In the process of collecting vibration data, where is the installation position of the vibration sensor? Where is the vibration data collected?

The article lacks innovation and rigor.

English is not my mother tongue.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Attached please find the Word file containing my responses to your comments.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Substantive assessment:
The authors try to improve the quality of harvested delicate fruits such as olives. They propose a dual solution, which is certainly more expensive than current commercial solutions. It is necessary to count all the costs incurred for the operation of 2 machines. The problem of picking up already dropped fruit is also important. Tarpaulins are a traditional solution that requires a large share of human work. In my opinion, machines that shake delicate fruits at the same time capture them are recommended. This should be the way forward for further modifications.
Can this method of shaking be applied to other fruits of woody plants and shrubs, such as nuts or berries?
What variety of olives is it? The Latin name of the research subject is always given, because it can only be a case study.
There are no studies on the durability and reliability of the new structure, which may determine its market success.

Editorial Rating:
- the figure should always be placed directly under the information about it. So Figure 2 should be higher on line 62. Thus, the caption will be below it on one page;
- we always give the same accuracy of the same parameter, so not 6 m but 6.0 m (see caption under Figure 4 and above);
- strange notation of equation 3;
- in accordance with the current system of SI units, the percentage is treated in the same way as a unit, so 70% (line 189) and others similar;
- the results lack their uncertainty;
- we use unit symbols, the second is marked with s (see line 222).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Attached please find the Word file containing my responses to your comments.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript deals with an interesting and topical theme concerning both the mechanics and the quality of the product.

The introduction is well written and overall the manuscript was well drafted.

Figures 7, 9 and 11 should show an index of variability, for example the standard error or the confidence interval. Or the variability of the data should be indicated in the text.

The methodology does not report statistical tests for the evaluation of statistically significant differences.

Authors should announce in materials and methods the statistical methodology used for data treatment, then tests for significance, and then report the test results in the description of results.

Statistical analysis is fundamental for data presentation and helps in discussions and conclusions.

I therefore invite the authors to add these parts.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Attached please find the Word file containing my responses to your comments.

Sincerely,

Corresponding Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

(1) It is recommended to present the interaction and collection of acceleration sensor signals in the form of a system, and to add a hardware system diagram for explanation.

(2) The conclusion should be further condensed to demonstrate the innovation of this article's work with specific data on efficiency improvement.

(3) Has there been any relevant research on olive harvesting experimental devices, and how much efficiency has been improved compared to other schemes in this article?

Language expression is standardized, and it is recommended to carefully check the expression of relevant professional terms.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments. Your comments are specifically addressed and explained in detail in the attached file. Also, the English language was edited by a native English speaker.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The title is too long, convoluted, and has oddly broken words in the lines
Paragraph formatting method other than recommended by the Publisher.
In mathematical formulas (number 4) according to the SI, we do not put a cross as a multiplication sign.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments. Your comments are all addressed. The title of the manuscript was shortened. The style of the paragraphs was revised based on the latest issue of published papers in the journal and the cross sign in  Equation 4 was removed based on your recommendation.  I appreciate all your helps to improve our manuscript quality.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have read the manuscript and the authors' letter explaining the changes and additions. I see that all the changes I suggested have been integrated, so I have no further changes to point to. Thanks again to the authors for their work.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for all of your valuable comments.