24小时热门版块排行榜

返回列表

当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

NZZZ

新虫 (初入文坛)

应助: 0 (幼儿园)
金币: 53.5
帖子: 19
在线: 11.9小时
虫号: 6588394
注册: 2017-05-23
专业: 机构学与机器人

[求助] 第一投稿SCI，收到审稿意见，求大家参谋下已有5人参与

本人第一次投稿SCI，期刊Measurement Science and Technology，力传感器方向，三个月收到编辑部邮件Major Revision ，其中有两个审稿人。看了下审稿意见感觉第一个审稿人意见比较认可，第二个提了21条意见感觉不太友善啊而且好多意见看的不是太懂。心里没底求大家给看看。
Referee: 1

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The authors in this paper have presented a measurement model of over-constrained parallel six-dimensional force sensor based on stiffness characteristics analysis. The sensing system becomes more and more important these days because of the necessity of manned operations. That is reflected in the explosion of papers in the recent past. This paper designed a new six-dimensional force sensor based on over-constrained parallel mechanism, which is interesting and helpful.

What has been noticed is that there are a very large number of English language mistakes that have to be thoroughly checked and corrected. It is necessary that thorough English correction is needed.
I think that the Fig.1 and Fig.2 should be combined.
The gap of the spherical joint connection structure could influence the performance of the force sensor, and I suggest that the authors should analysis it.
The authors should add some comparison between the results of numerical example and calibration experiment (fig. 5 and fig. 10).
  Regarding the application of force sensor, the following article should be cited:
[1] PM based multi-component F/T sensors—State of the art and trends[J]. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 2013, 29(4): 1-7.
[2] Design and Sensitivity Analysis Simulation of a Novel 3D Force Sensor Based on a Parallel Mechanism[J]. Sensors, 2016, 16(12): 2147.

Referee: 2

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
Authors review relevant literature, and describe first a general class of 6-dimensional over-constrained force sensor. They describe in great length their matrix algebra implementation of the stiffness and crosstalk model, and give a lengthy numerical example before introducing  the sensor prototype actually built, which seems to have different geometry as the examples. A (re-) calibration-type experiment is performed where the measurement model’s numerical values are updated to get higher accuracy.
Notes on the article draft:
1. What is  "FS" and “class error I/II” (should be class I/II error ?)  (describe/ref if not very common knowledge in the area...)  if it is full scale, it would also be nice to know the relative error with smaller than near  full scale forces?
2. Describe somehow calibration system metrological traceability, and how the sensor was calibrated before the “calibration experiment” to get the stiffnesses, crosstalks etc. or not at all ? what was the possible difference in the calibration methods, can you show clear before-after comparisons
3. in fig 3 could i and n be just one branch instead of 2, some extra white gaps in the figure 1 and 3?
4. Fig 3 needed separately at all ? maybe.
5. fig 4 is not easy to relate to the CAD/photo. Are the angles in table 1 correct? considering the values of I R_1, R_2 and H ..  so the example is for different geometry than the produced sensor but, same kind of measurement model can be applied ? why 10 branches in figure instead of 12? they would fit ....
6. Table 2 Output force of the "three kinds of measurement model" make more clear what are the three models, and what is called “simulation”
7. Too much equations (ok, measurement model good to see, but make more concise? )  , indexing choices etc not too important? - can eg. refer to somewhere or describe some equations just in the text ...
8. label branches to photos/CAD pictures ?
9. How does ball joint picture relate to the spokes – clear enough?
10. How the force sensors were read in the experiment ?
11. Individual branches flex (stiffness) or the connections from loading plate to contact plate ?
12. put whitespace between number and percent sign
13. "The preliminary values of the structural parameters are provided in Table 1." . what preliminary means here?
14. Abstract/intro: Where in the field of aerospace is this needed
15. Perhaps make clear the sensor has 4 Z-sensors/branches instead of two visible in the CAD picture etc. branches 1,2,3,4 are the vertical ones?
17. symbols are not the same as the legend in the fig 5a
18. description of error classes is maybe too late in the article text.
19. Describe how/why How the experimental results verified the theoretical model.
20. Not needed to show all the Err matrices?
21. Can it be called “orthogonal parallel” ..

回复此楼