Description
I sent the article to a journal. they reject it with many comments. some of their comments are tough. I did my best and tried to do their comments but I am still not happy with my corrections. Now, I need your help to re-write the article in full top down and issued new version in professional academic formats and make sure it met their comments.
The comments are from 4 reviewers and some of them are the same comments:
Reviewer 1:
The paper is confusing, however, I really want to give you a chance to improve it so that I can send it for review.
There is voluminous research on social robotics and there exist several/many robots that deal with special children (autistic) and also the elderly (dementia, etc.). In your case, you introduce a new social robot to assist with diabetic kids.
What is the objective of the paper? Have you designed and manufactured the robot platform? If not, are you just using it? If yes, what makes the approach unique and novel (compared to the literature)? What are the distinct features? That is, what makes this problem interesting and unique? To be more focused, can your robot be used to interact with autistic kids or it is geared to the specific application?
You must state exactly what are the contributions and what is the outcome you want to convey. Be technical and support your statements
Reviewer: 2
Recommendation: Reject (updates required before resubmission)
Comments:
I recon this contribution does not go well with this journal. It has ingredients that are under the IEEE tree but nothing has been investigated much. The number of children and trials in this study is insignificant and it is not very clear how this result impacts.
My advice for this paper is to focus on something specific. Maybe it could be the HRI part, could be the trial of the experiment, could be building a teleoperation framework. Costing could be an issue for the underdeveloped countries however the paper should specify a range instead of saying medium/high to a device, and the comparison should be broad.
Additional Questions:
1) Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Not so much.
2) Is the paper technically sound?: Not many technical things have been discussed.
3) Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: Average.
4) Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: I think the authors should explore and cite more research in this area.
5) Are there references that are not appropriate for the topic being discussed?: No
5a) If yes, then please indicate which references should be removed.:
Reviewer: 3
Recommendation: Reject (updates required before resubmission)
Comments:
The paper presents an automated robot platform named SARA to improve the administration and consciousness of type 1 diabetes among children. The concept of the paper is interesting but the paper is lack of in details explanation regarding the developed robotic platform and its evaluation. Specif concerns:
1. The abstract is not articulated properly. The abstract should be very precise, information, highlight the key contributions possibly with key experimental outcomes.
2. The contributions and novelty of the proposed framework should be highlighted in the introduction section.
3. What are the limitations/weaknesses of the existing systems and how the proposed method overcomes the problem of previous work or what improvements are proposed. The previous finding with limitations should summarize in the related work section.
4. Is SARA robot developed by the authors or just they utilized this platform? If developed, the construction, working principle and behavioral protocol should be described in details. If only used for the proposed task, how the robot is programmed to perform the task should described in details.
5. The details technical explanation of the diabetic management system should be explaned. How the data collected, how sensor processed data, how system maded decision, how different modules are interconnced and control should explain in details.
6. How to design the HRI experiment? Methods, Procedure, setting of the experiment, Participants info and so on should be explained explicitly.
7. How to evaluated the sytem? Quantatitive, qualiatative or both. Statndard evaluation measures should be used and explained clearly.
8. Key challnges should be highlighted in the discussion
9. More recent references should be included.
Additional Questions:
1) Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: No
2) Is the paper technically sound?: No
3) Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: No
4) Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: No
5) Are there references that are not appropriate for the topic being discussed?: No
5a) If yes, then please indicate which references should be removed.:
Reviewer: 4
Recommendation: Reject (updates required before resubmission)
Comments:
Did you introduce the SARA platform in the other papers?
Is this paper is the first one? If it is first paper relating to SARA, your contribution is exactly SARA robot, it is acceptable.
Otherwise, the previous SARA robot including Glucose Meter unit cant aceptable.
Did you produce the platform in Figure 2?
what is face recognition method? What is voice reconigition method?
Why did you use the face recognition and voice reconigition? or which stage of the interaction did you use?
Additional Questions:
1) Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?: Yes
2) Is the paper technically sound?: Yes
3) Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?: No
4) Are the references provided applicable and sufficient?: No. Please give the recent references about the new real robots and their applications. for example robotis-op3 and the others
5) Are there references that are not appropriate for the topic being discussed?: No
5a) If yes, then please indicate which references should be removed.: