All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Authors,
The reviewers think that your paper has been sufficiently improved and can now be accepted in its final form.
Best wishes,
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Massimiliano Fasi, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
The authors gave detailed answers to all of the previous comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. This paper can be accepted now.
The authors gave detailed answers to all of the previous comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. This paper can be accepted now.
The authors gave detailed answers to all of the previous comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. This paper can be accepted now.
The authors gave detailed answers to all of the previous comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. This paper can be accepted now.
Dear Authors,
The reviews suggest major revision. We encourage you to address the concerns and criticisms of reviewers and resubmit your paper once you have updated it accordingly.
Best wishes,
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
In the abstract and conclusion, the contribution of this paper is not well presented. In the conclusion and abstract, highlight the novelty of the paper.
The introduction is weak and should include the research question, the aim of the paper, and the contribution.
In related work…. Many researchers work on this idea. What is the novelty as compared to other studies? What is the new and the difference between the previous works and the present work?.
Improve the quality of literature, along with the latest literature.
The explanation of the related work needs to be criticized and improved in general.
What about the last update in this topic and new references from 2019-2025? The survey of existing literature is not sufficient. It would be useful to include in the Introduction of the paper some discussion on other possible real applications of the obtained results.
Improve the quality of figures for better visibility. It is a blur that should be adjusted.
The conclusion should be more specific, with an improvement in writing quality.
A suggestion for future work should be added in the conclusion section.
- Rewrite the references according to the journal template.
-Please strictly follow the instructions to the format specified in the journal template for preparing the paper
The format and English writing of this paper should be improved. The paper needs language revision.
-
-
In order to enhance the article quality, I suggest the following remarks be taken into account:
1/ The abstract is too long and lacks highlighting of contribution clearly, the novelty of this study has not been stated clearly. Please revise it
2/ To enhance the introduction, it is recommended to emphasize the novelty and originality of the study. Additionally, improving the contribution section can be beneficial. It is crucial to include recent related works in the literature review, such as: optimal fully actuated system approach-based trajectory tracking control for robot manipulators, barrier function-based nonsingular finite-time tracker for quadrotor UAVs subject to uncertainties and input constraints, prescribed performance adaptive robust control for robotic manipulators with fuzzy uncertainty, an adaptive barrier function terminal sliding mode controller for partial seizure disease based on the pinsky–rinzel mathematical model, event-triggered critic learning impedance control of lower limb exoskeleton robots in interactive environments, fuzzy-based fixed-time nonsingular tracker of exoskeleton robots for disabilities using sliding mode state observer.
3/ A figure of robot system with the coordinates as well as all variables of system should be added in the paper.
4/ All assumptions and physical constraints should be provided. The rationality of the assumptions should be explained. A subsection “Assumptions” should be added in the paper.
5/ The authors should provide a detailed explanation of the kinematic and dynamic models of robot system, including all assumptions and physical constraints. Additionally, the full forms of matrices
.
.
This paper investigates the trajectory tracking control problem of a two degree of freedom robotic arm based on Lyapunov control and multi-objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO), and proposes a control strategy that combines robustness and optimization algorithms. Although the research question has certain practical significance, the paper has obvious shortcomings in innovation, methodological rigor, and experimental verification, which affects the overall quality of the article.
1. Insufficient description of the implementation details of MOPSO, such as parameter settings, fitness function design, constraint handling, etc. It is recommended to supplement them.
2. Lack of comparative experiments with existing control methods such as PID, sliding mode control, or other optimization algorithms, which cannot prove the superiority of the proposed method.
1. Multi objective optimization (such as simultaneous optimization of tracking error and control energy consumption) has become a common approach in the field of robot control, and this article does not propose a new optimization framework or improved algorithm.
1. The dynamic modeling section is too brief and does not provide a detailed explanation of the parameter determination method for the friction model.
2. The introduction section provides a vague discussion on the research background, without clearly indicating the limitations of current technology and the relevance of this article's work.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.