mechanism and machine theory收到审稿意见之后不知所措
脥露赂氓脠媒赂枚脭脗脮没拢卢脡贸赂氓脪芒录没禄脴脌麓脕脣拢卢赂酶脕脣赂枚Minor revision拢卢脡贸赂氓脠脣赂脨戮玫脪虏禄鹿脥娄潞脙碌脛拢卢虏禄鹿媒赂酶脕脣脢庐露脿脤玫脡贸赂氓脪芒录没拢卢脫脨脨漏虏禄脰陋碌脌脠莽潞脦脨脼赂脛碌脛拢卢赂脙脠莽潞脦脢脟潞脙掳隆拢驴拢驴
虏禄脰陋碌脌脫脨脙禄脫脨脛脛脦禄麓贸脡帽脛脺赂酶碌茫戮颅脩茅脰庐脤赂拢卢赂脙脠莽潞脦赂霉戮脻脡贸赂氓脪芒录没陆酶脨脨脨脼赂脛拢卢脨猫脪陋脨漏脢虏脙麓脦脛录镁掳隆拢驴脨隆脣露碌脷脪禄麓脦脥露赂氓拢卢脢虏脙麓露录虏禄禄谩隆拢
脕铆脥芒拢卢卤脿录颅戮脥赂酶脕脣脪禄赂枚脡贸赂氓脠脣碌脛脪芒录没拢卢脢脟脕铆脪禄赂枚戮脥脪脩戮颅脥卢脪芒陆脫脢脮脕脣拢驴
路脟鲁拢赂脨脨禄拢隆拢隆
Dear Dr. ###,
Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.
For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below.
If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript.
To submit a revision, please go to https://ees.elsevier.com/mechmt/ and login as an Author. Please submit your revision by May 17, 2016
On your Main Menu page is a folder entitled "Submissions Needing Revision". You will find your submission record there.
Mechanism and Machine Theory features the Interactive Plot Viewer, see: https://www.elsevier.com/interactiveplots. Interactive Plots provide easy access to the data behind plots. To include one with your article, please prepare a .csv file with your plot data and test it online at https://authortools.elsevier.com/interactiveplots/verification before submission as supplementary material.
Yours sincerely,
Paulo Flores, Ph.D
Editor in Chief
Mechanism and Machine Theory
Note: While submitting the revised manuscript, please double check the author names provided in the submission so that authorship related changes are made in the revision stage. If your manuscript is accepted, any authorship change will involve approval from co-authors and respective editor handling the submission and this may cause a significant delay in publishing your manuscript.
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #2:
The authors investigate on the design and optimization of cam-linkage systems for gait rehabilitation. The manuscript is interesting and relevant for the readership of Mechanism and Machine Theory journal, being well organized and written in a satisfactory manner.
The method is based on the kinematics of motion, and considers as main parameters of design the cam variables and human gait parameters. The optimization is based on satisfying several constraints. The objective function minimizes size and optimizes operating parameters.
The manuscript can be accepted for publication after the following issues have been fully addressed:
1.
2.
3.
...
13.
...
返回小木虫查看更多
京公网安备 11010802022153号
还有就是，这种情况会送给审稿人再审吗？
你好逗啊，就贴了个1,2,3,4. ..13 你让大家怎么给你意见。。
露卯露卯~~~脪虏虏禄脰陋碌脌赂脙虏禄赂脙脤霉拢卢拢卢拢卢
脠莽脧脗拢潞
1. Please clearly state the novelty and new contribution of the presented methodology when compared with those available in the thematic literature.
2. The literature review is short. Some relevant references in the filed are missing (see list of additional references listed below).
3. It is also recommended that the authors review the overall writing since several typing errors were noted in the manuscript.
4. Please remove the website link at subsection 3.1 and use appropriate reference.
5. Please revise the accuracy of lengths such us "Lthigh=398.4240 mm", the level of precision is to fine.
6. The design and optimization approach considers the gait trajectories given in Fig. 3. However, for most of the pathologies, different patterns must be considered. How are different patterns incorporated in the presented approach?
7. The objective function should be revised. In multiobjective optimization function, it is important to scale appropriately all contributions to the objective function. In equation (22), the authors are adding quantities with different dimensions. Note that results of optimization would change by changing units. Also, a discussion is needed about how to find appropriate weight factors for each term.
8. The optimized profile must be compared with other obtained profiles.
9. The method can be used for low speed applications, since only kinematics aspects are analyzed. High-speed applications need to consider induced vibrations in other components, such as springs, with implications also on the cam profiles. A comment is needed in this sense.
10. The authors may want to comment on the computational accuracy and efficiency of the proposed approach when compared with alternative cam design methodologies.
11. The validation, in terms of implementation and utilization for actual rehabilitation situations must be comments. In fact, doing this, it will be clear the benefits in comparison for alternative systems for gait rehabilitation.
12. Please clearly demonstrate the differences, benefits and merits of the proposed solution when compared with the one available in Ref. [8.]. See for instance, CAD model presented.
13. Please consider the following recommended references: ...
赂酶赂枚脪芒录没脽脗脜贸脫脩~
脮忙碌脛潞脺脧拢脥没碌脙碌陆脛茫脙脟碌脛脪芒录没隆拢脨禄脨禄脌虏~~
鉴于我怂恿你贴出审稿意见，我就抛砖引玉一下哈。
1. Please clearly state the novelty and new contribution of the presented methodology when compared with those available in the thematic literature.
这个主要在introduction部分，突出你这篇文章和现有相关论文在理论或者应用方面的创新。可以通过阐述现有技术的不足（注意措辞，要实事求是，不要为了凸显自己的好而过分贬低别人的文章）进而引出自己为什么写这篇文章，用了什么新的方法，取得了什么进展（精度，效率，应用范围等等）。
2. The literature review is short. Some relevant references in the filed are missing (see list of additional references listed below).
这个和第一个问题还有第十三个问题是相辅相成的，把你文章相关的文章看看，学习一下别人是怎么梳理相关文献并提出相关文献不足的，然后好好的把introduction重新整理下，最好问问有经验的师兄师姐和老师。
3. It is also recommended that the authors review the overall writing since several typing errors were noted in the manuscript.
认真检查文章拼写和语法错误。一是可以让老师同学修改，如果有钱（可报销），可以让专业公司润色，并在修改稿中附上润色证明。
4. Please remove the website link at subsection 3.1 and use appropriate reference.
照做即可。尽量不要饮用网络文献并在R1版本中注意所有参考文献格式。
5. Please revise the accuracy of lengths such us "Lthigh=398.4240 mm", the level of precision is to fine.
数据的有效位数太多了。注意与实际可以测量得到的工程实际相符合。
6. The design and optimization approach considers the gait trajectories given in Fig. 3. However, for most of the pathologies, different patterns must be considered. How are different patterns incorporated in the presented approach?
不太懂。是不是要你讨论不同的路径对优化结果会有怎样的影响？
7. The objective function should be revised. In multiobjective optimization function, it is important to scale appropriately all contributions to the objective function. In equation (22), the authors are adding quantities with different dimensions. Note that results of optimization would change by changing units. Also, a discussion is needed about how to find appropriate weight factors for each term.
是不是你的公式22的优化目标函数的变量单位不统一还是啥的？然后还有就是要对优化变量的权重参数进行讨论（写一段话说明你为啥选这个权重，可以引一些参考文献之类）
8. The optimized profile must be compared with other obtained profiles.
你提出的优化方法的结果和其他方法或者未经优化的结果比较，显出你的牛逼之处。
9. The method can be used for low speed applications, since only kinematics aspects are analyzed. High-speed applications need to consider induced vibrations in other components, such as springs, with implications also on the cam profiles. A comment is needed in this sense.
讨论一下高速运动状态下，你这个方法的适用性和局限性。
10. The authors may want to comment on the computational accuracy and efficiency of the proposed approach when compared with alternative cam design methodologies.
讨论一下你这个方法和其他方法相比的精度和效率方面的比较。（最好是算同一个例子列结果，不知道你原文有没有这一块，如果没有又不想加话，小修文章怎么改最好和同学老师讨论一下。）
11. The validation, in terms of implementation and utilization for actual rehabilitation situations must be comments. In fact, doing this, it will be clear the benefits in comparison for alternative systems for gait rehabilitation.
还是缺乏讨论的问题。你这个方法在实际工程中的应用前景如何，请讨论。
12. Please clearly demonstrate the differences, benefits and merits of the proposed solution when compared with the one available in Ref. [8.]. See for instance, CAD model presented.
和现有方法对比，同上
13. Please consider the following recommended references: ...
直接表示感谢并且加上就好了。
总的来看，审稿人对你文章用的方法评价尚可。主要的问题在于两方面，一是你方法的描述（如EQ22）上存在一些小问题，比如权重参数的选取啊，变量的有效位数啊等。
二是你文章存在和现有方法讨论不够的问题。主要表现在对现有文献的了解综述不够，对于你的优化方法的创新叙述不够，没有表现出新意。结果缺乏和现有方法的对比。讨论等等。（就是没有说明1、别人做了什么，有什么不足，2、自己为了提高别人哪一个不足提出了本文的方法并通过数值或者试验证明你的方法成功的提高了精度或者效率。），
总的来说，我觉得是写法上的问题多过文章的硬伤。审稿人应该是看出了文章的新意，但是捉急于你没有将这些“新”给写出来。所以提的大部分问题都是在从各个方面引导你，教你如何突出你文章的“新”。建议一方面好好揣摩审稿人的意见，同时多看看你参考文献里面别人的introduction，conclusion部分是怎么引出问题，提出缺陷，进行改进的。还有就是学习一下别人是怎么比较自己的方法和已有结果以展现自己方法更好的（其实也就是精度和效率）。最后就是把相关文献给引上，把问题归纳得更系统一些。