The Fixed-Time Observer-Based Adaptive Tracking Control for Aerial Flexible-Joint Robot with Input Saturation and Output Constraint
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper sounds interesting. The theme is interesting and has academic contribution. The results are interesting and the proposed scheme is valid. The document also has good contextualization and good references.
However, I suggest that the authors can provide improvements throughout the paper. There are countless paragraphs that are very long, with many ideas and sometimes confusing. I suggest a native language speaker or proofreader. The problem statement is adequate, but the preliminary ones can be improved, explaining better the definitions and formulations. The FTOAC design section is well written and delimited. Perhaps the authors can improve the explanations of the proposed scheme and perhaps a new big picture combined with the interesting figure 2; something preeliminate her. About the simulations, how were the tests carried out? How were the comparisons... I suggest more detail in this section, especially on the results of figures 7, 8 and 9. Explain the findings better and bring part of the most important findings to the conclusions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
First of all, we are very grateful to you for your time spent making positive constructive comments. These comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our manuscript.
We have studied the comments carefully and have made a correction which we hope meets with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the revised version. Responses to comments are presented in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
1. What the reasons about the authors selected in Table.2 ?
2 What the software conducted in this work?
3.The paper should be added quantity Table to prove the proposed method correctness.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
First of all, we are very grateful to you for your time spent making positive constructive comments. These comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our manuscript.
We have studied the comments carefully and have made a correction which we hope meets with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the revised version. Responses to comments are presented in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
An adequate methodology is presented to address the problem of: adaptive control scheme based on a fixed-time observer, that is proposed to achieve tracking control of an n-link aerial flexible jointed robt with input saturation and output constraint.
Some typos need to be corrected:
One line before section 3.2 (Line 182) , says Thorem.
Again with this word "theorem" in Appendix A, in the first line says therom
Improve the style of letters in the title of section number 4
Finally , improve to datas in table number 2. Put in a single line each of the diffferent parameters, since each of these have the same values.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
First of all, we are very grateful to you for your time spent making positive constructive comments. These comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our manuscript.
We have studied the comments carefully and have made a correction which we hope meets with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the revised version. Responses to comments are presented in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Figure 5 of poor resolution since only the blue line is visible… More detail is needed or the comparison is pointless. Figure 9 shows some detail that would be advisable for figure 5.
Conclusions SEEM to be too short; anything else for the reader to keep in mind? Or to suggest a future work?
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
First of all, we are very grateful to you for your time spent making positive constructive comments. These comments are all valuable and helpful for revising and improving our manuscript.
We have studied the comments carefully and have made a correction which we hope meets with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the revised version. Responses to comments are presented in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
All typos has been corrected that were indicated in the comments for the authors. In my opinion, this version of the article is suitable to be published as this.
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for you kind answers. Although I feel that figure 5 is still no the best, I agree with your explanation.
I still beleive conclusion could be improved, I'm fine if you are so.
