Exercise 4

G. Fazzini et al., “Print On Air: FDM 3D Printing Without Supports,” 2019 II Workshop on Metrology for Industry 4.0 and IoT (MetroInd4.0&IoT), Naples, Italy, 2019, pp. 350-354, doi: 10.1109/METROI4.2019.8792846.

  1. Do you have any conflict of interest in reviewing this paper? A “conflict of interest” is defined as follows:
    • Ph.D. thesis advisor or advisee
    • Postdoctoral advisor or advisee
    • Collaborators or co-authors for the past 48 months
    • Any other individual or institution with which the investigator has financial ties
  2. Yes/no. If yes, please disqualify yourself instead of proceeding.
  3. Expertise. Provide your expertise in the topic area of this paper.
    • 4 – Expert
    • 3 – Knowledgeable
    • 2 – Passing Knowledge
    • 1 – No Knowledge
  4. Summary. Please summarize what you believe are the paper’s main contributions to the field of soft robotics.
    This paper suggests an algorithm for Fused Deposition Material (FDM) 3D printers that remove the necessity of supports for objects with overhangs. The algorithm calculates a path for the extruder that is already a part of the object and can structurally hold the next layer of filament. This path is calculated from slicing the object. Although this paper does not directly mention soft robots, FDM printing is a common fabrication technique for soft robotic parts, so their proposed technique, if successful, would make the fabrication of soft robotic parts more efficient and thus less expensive.
  5. Strengths and Weaknesses. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of this work? Does the paper have strengths in originality and novelty?
    The main strength to this paper is that it explains the problem and need for solution very well. By the end of the Abstract, it is clear why this problem needs solving and the benefits of their solution. In addition, the visual aides greatly augment understanding of the paper. Its central weakness is that it does not spend adequate time discussing the algorithm itself, so it can not be easily grasped by those not familiar with it.
  6. Soundness. Are the ideas, algorithms, results or studies technologically/methodologically sound?
    As mentioned above, the proposed algorithm is not explained extensively, so it is difficult to argue that it is or is not sound. This could also be due to the fact that I lack prerequisite knowledge to understand the algorithm.
  7. Related Work. Does the paper adequately describe related and prior work?
    Yes, this paper does an adequate job of discussing important sections of previous work.
  8. Presentation. Is the paper well organized, well written and clearly presented?
    Yes, this paper is well-written and organized. It is succinct and not too lengthy. There is one typo I saw.
  9. Suggestions. Do you have suggestions for improving this paper?
    My main suggestion is to expand on the algorithm. More time is spent justifying the need for the solution, but the solution itself is presented minimally. This suggestion is also likely due to my lack of understanding of algorithms, but it may still be useful. Figure 3 shows the movements of the extruder calculated by the algorithm, but it is a zigzag line on the print bed and none of the terms in the algorithm are labelled. 

For the figures on the last page, I would argue that Fig. 4 (an image of an FDM printer) is not necessary. It can easily be found by a quick google search. Also, I suggest that Fig. 5 and 6 be combined, as they are different views of the same object. Fig. 5 already is broken up into a) and b), each presenting a different view of the object, so Fig. 6 can become Fig. 5c. In Figure 7, there is a typo: it should say “a second example”. 

  1. Comments to Committee (Hidden from authors). Does the paper have enough originality and importance to merit publication? Is the paper relevant to the field? These comments will NOT be sent to the authors:
    The paper seems to present an original and new idea that is relevant to soft robotics; however they do not spend enough time presenting their solution.
  2. Overall Rating. Provide your overall rating of the paper (5 is best)
    • 5 – Definite accept: I would argue strongly for accepting this paper.
    • 4 – Probably accept: I would argue for accepting this paper.
    • 3 – Borderline: Overall I would not argue for accepting this paper.
    • 2 – Probably reject: I would argue for rejecting this paper.
    • 1 – Definite reject: I would argue strongly for rejecting this paper.

Leave a Reply