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.
The manuscript has been improved based on the reviewers' comments and suggestions.
My recommendation is "acceptance"
The reviewer thanks the authors for the response given to each of the concerns raised in the review process. The reviewer considers that this manuscript can be considered for possible publication.
This manuscript studies an interesting topic and the authors have presented some interesting results. However, two reviewers have pointed out some issues to be considered and addressed, e.g., comparing the experimental results with some prevailing methods, analysing the robustness of the controller, improving English writing, correcting the typos and grammatical errors, etc. Please carefully revise the manuscript based on the comments and suggestions.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The Academic Editor has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at email@example.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
My main comments are summarized as follows:
1- The PID control is well studied in the literature, the main contribution of your work and the main differences between the existing work should be declared in the introduction.
2- The literature review is not enough.
3- In the industry, all control systems work in noisy environment in which there exist faults, disturbances/noise and delays, what about these uncertainties in your work. Please discuss
• Fault-tolerant control for a class of quantised networked control of nonlinear systems with unknown time-varying sensor faults, International Journal of Control 93 (3), 619-628.
• A new online delay estimation-based robust adaptive stabilizer for multi-input neutral systems with unknown actuator nonlinearities, ISA transactions 2017, 139-148.
• Less-conservative robust adaptive control of neutral systems with mixed time-delays, International Journal of Systems Science 48 (4), 675-685.
• Anti-windup adaptive PID control design for a class of uncertain chaotic systems with input saturation, ISA transactions 66, 176-184.
• Adaptive stabilization of neutral systems with nonlinear perturbations and mixed time‐varying delays, International Journal of Adaptive Control and Signal Processing 29, 1328-1340.
• A new unmatched-disturbances compensation and fault-tolerant control for partially known nonlinear singular systems, ISA Transactions 104, September 2020, 310-320
4- In Fig. 2, the author used derivative operator d/dt although they deal with difference equations. Please correct it.
5- You should compare your experimental results with the existing results.
6- Some remarks should be added to declare the effects of the design parameters in the simulation results.
This paper presents adaptive neural PD controllers applied to mobile manipulator trajectory tracking. The paper uses clear, unambiguous, technically correct text. and its structure is consistent and easy to follow. Raw data is shared and supports the results presented.
The paper is into the scope of the journal. It is suggested that the methods should be described with sufficient detail to be reproducible by another investigator.
The proposed controllers are interesting, however an important aspect is related to stability. This study must be included within the paper. Furthermore, the proposed control only takes into account the kinematics of the robot. It would be important that the dynamics of the robot be taken into account. Finally, it is important to analyze the robustness of the controllers in the presence of disturbances, non-modeled dynamics and measurement noise.
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.