Delivery-date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:40:13 +0000
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:39:49 -0500 (EST)
From: gregc@jhu.edu
Sender: onbehalfof+gregc+jhu.edu@manuscriptcentral.com
To: A.Bowyer@bath.ac.uk
Message-ID: <1439705179.515221265639989039.JavaMail.wladmin@tss1be0008>
Subject: Robotica - Decision on Manuscript ID ROB-REG-09-0184
Errors-To: gregc@jhu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

08-Feb-2010

Dear Dr. Bowyer:

Manuscript ID ROB-REG-09-0184 entitled "RepRap - The Replicating Rapid Prot=
otyper" which you submitted to Robotica, has been reviewed.  The comments o=
f the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

The guest editors recommend that the authors revise this submission in acco=
rdance with reviewer directions. Depending on the time required to complete=
 this revision, as well as the outcome of the subsequent review process, th=
e revised work may be included in the special issue on Robotic Self-X Syste=
ms.=20

To revise your manuscript, log into http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/robotic=
a  and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title =
listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions."  Under "Actions," click on "Crea=
te a Revision."  Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revis=
ion.

You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted versi=
on of the manuscript.  Instead, revise your manuscript using a word process=
ing program and save it on your computer.  Please also highlight the change=
s to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in=
 MS Word or by using bold or colored text.

Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it th=
rough your Author Center.

When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the=
 comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided.  You can use this =
space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript.  In orde=
r to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specif=
ic as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

IMPORTANT:  Your original files are available to you when you upload your r=
evised manuscript.  Please delete any redundant files before completing the=
 submission.

Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submi=
tted to Robotica, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as pos=
sible.  If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonab=
le amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Robotica and I look=
 forward to receiving your revision.

Sincerely,
Prof. Greg Chirikjian
Editor in Chief, Robotica
gregc@jhu.edu


Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:

Reviewer: 1
Comments to the Author
This is a very excellent review of the kinematic replication field and summ=
ary of the history and accomplishments of the RepRap project.  There=E2=80=
=99s the same exciting feel as in the earliest days in the PC industry back=
 in the late 1970s, when Radio Shack and others started selling the first a=
ssemble-it-yourself home computers.  I enthusiastically recommend this pape=
r for publication in Robotica.

I didn=E2=80=99t see a statement of the estimated lifetime of a typical mac=
hine, e.g., how many hours you can get out of key parts, such as a head, be=
fore it must be replaced;  nor did I see a statement of the smallest attain=
able feature size on product objects that can be fabricated (this is differ=
ent from the raw positioning accuracy, which is stated to be 0.1 mm).  Addi=
ng these two bits of information to the text would improve the paper, but a=
re not critical.

I could find only one minor factual error:  on the last line of page 6, =E2=
=80=9CReproducing Concepts Team=E2=80=9D should be corrected to =E2=80=9CRe=
plicating Systems Concepts Team=E2=80=9D, which was the actual name of the =
group in this study.


Reviewer: 2
Comments to the Author
I found this to be a very interesting, well written narrative of the rep-ra=
p project. However, therin lies my greatest objection - that this reads lik=
e a narrative or a progress report more than a scientific paper. I think mu=
ch of the content is relevant, but it would benefit readers to reorganize t=
he paper from section 3 onwards to stress what the "result" is. Describe th=
e working, replicating printer clearly, in all its details, and fill in his=
tory, variations, and some future directions in separate sections to the ex=
tent it enlightens the reader.
=20
Specific comments:=20
-Since you do not give an exact definition of "raw" materials, it would be =
useful background to present the physical systems that have been demonstrat=
ed reproducing, albeit with varying levels of "raw" materials. IE Zykov et =
al at Cornell in addition to Chirikjian (JHU) whom your reference elsewhere=
.=20

-Although an interesting philosophical read, much of section 2 ("the genesi=
s of RepRap") seemed tangential to the results presented here. I would stro=
ngly suggest (but not require) that this section be distilled to its core i=
deas.

-A functional diagram would be helpful along with Fig 4.

-Awkward to references authors within the paper, ie "... one of us (VO) cam=
e up with a..."

-Replace hand-drawn sketch with a clear, computer-generated diagram. (Fig 5=
)=20

- Fig 7: functional diagram would be helpful in addition to one exterior vi=
ew. Actual picture would be worlds better than a Solidworks screenshot.

-"Unlike commercial machines, RepRap also allows interiors to be built full=
y dense." Incorrect. All major vendors I am familiar with (Stratasys, ZCorp=
, Objet, all laser sintering systems, etc) have this option, if not require=
ment. You may be speaking of the fact that stratasys leaves micro-voids eve=
n when set to print dense, but after the previous sentence comparing "dense=
" to "honeycomb" this is very confusing/misleading.

-In mentioning  the FaH project, your comment "(this project, incidentally,=
 was inspired by RepRap)" should be referenced if you wish to assert this. =
(quick survey of the FaH site you include as your reference doesn't verify =
this...)

-One could easily argue that the build precision of your child machines com=
es from the positioning system, not the parts produced by the parent machin=
e. Please address in your discussion - IE where you call it "self replicati=
ng" by your definition.


In summary, I believe this is valuable information that should be definitel=
y published, but a reader should have a stronger sense of "arrival" at a re=
sult than I get from reading this paper. Some relatively deep re-organizing=
 is in order, but will (I believe) result in a much stronger paper.

Reviewer: 3
Comments to the Author
This paper is very interesting and useful to the engineering practitioner i=
nterested in producing a self-reproducing machine that is also capable of f=
abricating other useful engineering artifacts. The establishment of a clear=
 lexicon around self-reproduction is particularly useful for categorizing e=
xisting attempts at self-reproducing kinematic machines. Additionally, the =
biomimetic approach provides an excellent justification for the design of t=
he RepRap as a kinematic assisted self-replication self-manufacturing machi=
ne.=20

To strengthen the paper it would be helpful to more clearly place the RepRa=
p in the broader ecosystem of personal fabrication robots (both self-replic=
ating and otherwise). For example, the MakerBot and Fab@Home projects are m=
entioned as RepStraps, but it would be nice to have an overview of how thei=
r capabilities compare to or complement the RepRap's.=20

Secondly, while the hardware design evolution is covered in-depth, the soft=
ware is ignored entirely. An overview of the control software, particularly=
 slicing and filling algorithms would be illuminating. For example, the pap=
er mentions that the internal density of the part can be adjusted over a wi=
de range. One challenge for any solid free form machine is the production o=
f thin-walled parts. Though arbitrary part fabrication is clearly not the p=
rimary goal of RepRap, it would be useful to describe its limitations in th=
at regard. Also of interest are open source design tools. Are any design to=
ols included as part of the RepRap kit, or does the system simply except an=
d standard part representations like STL, depending on the user to provide =
the tools for designing parts?