A Study of an Agricultural Indoor Robot for Harvesting Edible Bird Nests in Vietnam

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article presents a demonstration of a robot for collecting edible bird nests. Mathematical modeling was performed for the developed robot control concept in terms of the analysis of kinematic and dynamic forces. The structure of the robotic equipment and control system was described, and tests were performed to validate the functions and operation of the robot in a harvest simulation environment.

The concept and the presented analysis of the mathematical modeling of the robot are valuable from a practical perspective.

However, the work lacked a typical scientific approach.

The summary concluded, among other things, that nests could be identified and collected with average identification accuracy and collection success rates of 89.7% and 82%, respectively, with an average collection time of 4.3 seconds for the various cases.

The text of the work does not indicate on the basis of which research or research experiments they were obtained. The authors should present the research plan and results of the experiments performed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are authors of the manuscript named “A study of indoor robot for harvesting edible bird-nests”. Firstly, thanks for taking your time to precisely review our manuscript and your extra elaborate remarks. The issues you mentioned are great and give me a lot better manuscript. As soon as we received the editor’s email, we quickly tried to correct all the identified mistakes in grammar and semantics. We sincerely apologize for these errors. Following your advices, we have made a few edits to enhance the readability of the paper and revised it.

We are looking forward to receiving more practical advice from you to improve our manuscript. Thanks for reviewing our replies and have a good day.

Sincerely.

Reviewer 2 Report

The work titled A study of indoor robot for harvesting edible bird-nests is very interesting. The use of a multiplier to collect swiftlet nests is used correctly. The description of the multiplier model is correct. The work is written in a clear and transparent way for the reader.

Notes for authors:

1. line 73 is missing a space before [4];

2. in lines 139, 382 and 560 there is a dot, then a bracket with literature and a word starting with a lowercase letter. The sentence is missing a capital letter.

3. Reference numbers 10 and 23 are missing from the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are authors of the manuscript named “A study of indoor robot for harvesting edible bird-nests”. Firstly, thanks for taking your time to precisely review our manuscript and your extra elaborate remarks. The issues you mentioned are great and give me a lot better manuscript. As soon as we received the editor’s email, we quickly tried to correct all the identified mistakes in grammar and semantics. We sincerely apologize for these errors. Following your advices, we have made edits to enhance the readability of the paper and revised it.

1. line 73 is missing a space before [4]:

We revised it.

2. in lines 139, 382 and 560 there is a dot, then a bracket with literature and a word starting with a lowercase letter. The sentence is missing a capital letter.

We revised them.

3. Reference numbers 10 and 23 are missing from the text.

We revised them.

We are looking forward to receiving more practical advice from you to improve our manuscript. Thanks for reviewing our replies and have a good day.

Sincerely.

Reviewer 3 Report

Hello authors,

I hope to find you well and healthy.

It is a great pleasure to contribute to the publication of your paper. I found the proposal very interesting. It will fill a research gap that requires further investigation like this. My recommendations seek to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript - I hope my recommendations are useful to you.

Best regards,

I recommend improving the title of the paper. You don't need to change anything, but add more information. For example: it remains to add where this was applied, which sector more specifically, and further detail this case.

It remains to add a sentence to the abstract to close it, which must be included because this research will be useful for the sector.

The introduction needs to be improved. I recommend that the authors divide this section into more paragraphs. I found the two paragraphs very long, and it was confusing to understand what was being said. This will improve your understanding of your proposal.

The beginning of section 2 also needs to be split (first paragraph). Additionally, I recommend that authors reference the sentences from lines 165-193.

Before the conclusion, I strongly recommend that the discussion section of the authors' paper be added. This section will be rich for your paper - this is where you can comment on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal you developed compared to other researchers in the literature. Robotics is on the rise, and there are many studies for you to discuss.

I recommend adding a table where information will be added about the advantages and disadvantages of the study you carried out in comparison to others in the literature (this will be fundamental to improving the contribution of the research to the literature).

In conclusion, I recommend adding the main limitation of the research. Also, for future studies, what do you recommend? This also needs to be included. Many researchers rely on this to develop their academic research.

Many references already consolidated in the literature and current in the introduction are missing. Furthermore, in the discussion of the paper it will be necessary to do this with current cases.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are authors of the manuscript named “A study of indoor robot for harvesting edible bird-nests”.

Firstly, thanks for taking your time to precisely review our manuscript and your extra elaborate remarks. The issues you mentioned are great and give me a lot better manuscript. As soon as we received the editor’s email, we quickly tried to correct all the identified mistakes in grammar and semantics. We sincerely apologize for these errors. Following your advices, we have made a few edits to enhance the readability of the paper and revised it.

I thank for your extremely accurate comments and I have added all the content you suggested. We are looking forward to receiving more practical advice from you to improve our manuscript. Thanks for reviewing our replies and have a good day.

Sincerely.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made improvements and additions to the article.

I make no further comments.

I accept the article.