Design and Experiment of Double-Row Seed-Metering Device for Buckwheat Large Ridges
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. References and equations in the paper should be carefully proofread, such as the bottom of Figure 8 shows “Error! Reference source not found.”; Equation 5 appears in Chinese, are not supposed to make mistakes.
2. Figure 14, 15 scale in the digital font size is too small.
3. Whether the generality or applicability of the seeding device has been verified, it is recommended to give an explanation.
4. The seed height is controlled by a cylindrical seed box. Is this box part of the seed feeder? If so, should a structural analysis be carried out in the preceding paragraph?
The tenses of many statements in the paper are incorrect and need to be corrected.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we have made the appropriate corrections in the latest manuscript based on your suggestions, please see the attachment for the relevant responses.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper has a certain value of the high-speed precision seed metering device design, and the academic value is beyond doubt. However, there are some problems with this paper, the suggestions for improvement are as follows.
1. The citations in the text contain numerous errors. I have difficulty to believe the sources of some of the equations.
2. How does equation 4 ensure that (3 ± 1) seeds? The value of d seems to be a range and how is it determined?
3. What is the meaning of equation 5? Obviously, the length of the buckwheat grain is longer than its thickness and width.
4. In equations 18 and 19, the insignificant terms should be removed from the regression equations.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we have made the appropriate corrections in the latest manuscript based on your suggestions, please see the attachment for the relevant responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This article mainly focuses on the design and experimental research of a large ridge double row buckwheat seeder. Buckwheat belongs to small miscellaneous grains and has a wide planting area in China and internationally. However, the existing mechanical planting methods cannot effectively ensure its planting effect. Therefore, conducting research on its seeder has certain research value and significance. The large ridge double row seeder proposed in this question has certain innovation in structure, and its performance has been verified through experiments. The overall structure of the paper is reasonable and the content is rich, but there are still some problems to be studied.
1. Suggest the author to supplement foreign research work on seeder design and other aspects in the introduction.
2. There are many grammar problems in the paper that are difficult to understand. Suggest the author to select professionals to further revise the paper. For example, “Currently, there are planters in production that can meet the requirements of double-row planting in large ridges”, do you mean “At present, the seeders in production can meet the requirements of large ridge and double row planting.”?
3. The description of professional terms needs to be carefully studied. For example,“hole wheel type large ridge double row special seeder and seed metering device”.
4. The research object of this paper is buckwheat. It is recommended that the author add some content on the physical parameters of buckwheat seeds in the article, so that it can provide data support for the design parameter selection of subsequent seeders.
5. What is the difference between H2 in Figure 8 and H in the previous text?
6. Suggest the author to supplement relevant literature or data to support the basis for setting the range of various factors.
7. When analyzing data, it is recommended that the authors base their analysis on the characteristics of buckwheat sowing rather than simply describing its results or curves. 8. Place spaces between numbers and units. 9. It is recommended that the author replace Figure 1 with a three-dimensional diagram.
​8. Place spaces between numbers and units. 9. It is recommended that the author replace Figure 1 with a three-dimensional diagram.Author Response
Dear reviewer, we have made the appropriate corrections in the latest manuscript based on your suggestions, please see the attachment for the relevant responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This article presents the design of a buckwheat seeder, elaborating on the design principles and conducting a bench test to evaluate its performance. However, the manuscript lacks creativity and there is significant room for improvement.
1.There should be a space between numbers and units throughout the text. The author should review and polish the language.
2.Avoid using keywords that are repetitive with the title.
Introduction:
3. When referencing someone else's contribution, only the surname is needed.
4. What are the differences between buckwheat seeds and regular wheat seeds? Can the seeder designed for other seeds be applied? Highlight the innovative aspects of this study.
5. The introduction should have logical coherence and be enriched with more content.
6. Briefly summarize your work in the last paragraph of the introduction.
Materials and Methods:
7. Figure 1 should include an overall 3D diagram and highlight the key components.
8. Combine Figures 2 and 3 into Figure 1, using labels like a, b, c.
9. Move section 2.1.2 to 2.1.1.
10. In Figure 4, the cross-section lines should be distinct from the outline. Additionally, clarify the meaning of labels a and b, and add dimension labels.
11. Refer to comments on Figure 4 when creating Figure 7. Combine Figures 8 and 7.
12. Include a clear photo of the seeder in Figure 9, and label the key components.
13. In section 2.3.2, the replanting index and missing planting index are also key indicators of the seeder's performance. Why did the author overlook them?
Results and Discussion:
14. Equations 10 and 11 should be moved to the Materials and Methods section.
15. Table 2 contains too little information and can be removed. Instead, elaborate on the findings in the text.
16. Add error bars to Figures 10, 12, and 13.
17. What is the R2 value for the fitted curves in Equations 12 and 13? Also, plot the fitted curves on Figure 10. The same applies to Figures 12 and 13.
18. Table 3 should be moved to the Materials and Methods section.
19. Include significance markers in Tables 6 and 7.
20. The Results section lacks discussions.
Conclusion:
21. Please summarize the conclusion concisely.
References:
22. The formatting of the references and citations in the text is problematic, with some characters appearing as garbled text.
The author should review and polish the language.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, we have made the appropriate corrections in the latest manuscript based on your suggestions, please see the attachment for the relevant responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The original manuscript has revised most of the issues, but there are still several issues that need further consideration.
1. Please reconsider question 19 from the first round of review. In Table 6, the p-values for X1, X2, and the interaction terms (including Table 7) for the three factors are all greater than 0.05, indicating that the selected factors do not have a significant impact on the results. So why analyze the interaction effects in the response surface?
2. Please reconsider question 20 from the first round of review. The discussion section is crucial, so it is important to understand the writing approach for discussing the results and to further deepen the discussion.
3. Importantly, question 12 from the first round of review has Chinese annotations, indicating that the authors did not carefully review and consider the comments and suggestions.
Author Response
We have made the appropriate corrections in the latest manuscript as suggested and have uploaded the latest manuscript on the mdpi official website. We look forward to hearing from you!
