Jason Perez | Peer Review

Conference Paper | A five-way directional soft valve with a case study: a starfish like soft robot

This paper describes the process of developing and creating a new soft valve by using new fabrication and actuation methods. The paper demonstrates the capabilities of the new valve by creating a starfish soft robot with independent motion on each limb.

Zou, JiaKang, MengKe Yang, and GuoQing Jin. “A Five-Way Directional Soft Valve with a Case Study: A Starfish like Soft Robot.” In 2020 5th International Conference on Automation, Control and Robotics Engineering (CACRE), 130–34, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1109/CACRE50138.2020.9230177.

Notes

• The abstract immediately presents the problem that the paper is solving: valves in soft robotics are still made up of hard materials. Additionally, the abstract provides a quick explanation of the soft valve mechanism and its benefits.
• It was interesting to see not just a new component, but also an application of the component within a soft robot to show its functionality.
• The introduction does a great job of explaining the areas their work is addressing. Quick yet informative paragraphs helped orient me in the paper’s purpose.
• Although I was often lost when certain technical terms were used, the paper does an excellent job of providing a narrative of the development of their work.

Review

Originality. All papers must present original work.

• The work presented seems original. The paper acknowledges past work in the field while presenting a new method that builds upon proven components.

Novelty. We welcome big ideas and provocative papers, even if they may not be perfectly implemented. We also welcome papers that bring together different disciplines and approaches.

• The paper has an interesting and novel component for soft robotics by both introducing their new valve as well as a working implementation. The changes in fabrication and application are a significant improvement from the cited works.

Relevance. All papers must be relevant to the field.

• The paper is very relevant to the field of soft robotics as it explains the current state of the field and presents suggestions for innovation within the field through its soft valve.

Soundness. A paper needs to be technologically and/or methodologically sound based on the criteria generally used for that technology or method within a given field.

• The paper offers detailed information about the methodology and testing of its soft valve through a starfish soft robot. The paper not only discusses the benefits of their component but also the drawbacks in its current iteration.

Technical detail. Please provide adequate details to indicate what was done, how the data were collected, sample size and characteristics, what type of robot was involved, etc. Authors should use the correct terminology for their methods to avoid being evaluated against the incorrect set of criteria.

• I believe that the data presented was extracted from the correct procedures. The authors have plenty of figures to illustrate their models and processes along with great detail in their writing.

Accessibility. All papers must be written to be accessible for a broad, interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary audience.

• The paper is very accessible as it provides a good summary of the field of robotics as well as a potential problem to which they present a solution. The problem/solution narrative makes for an easy-to-follow read even though there is technical vocabulary.

Do you have any conflict of interest in reviewing this paper? A “conflict of interest” is defined as follows:

1. Ph.D. thesis advisor or advisee
2. Postdoctoral advisor or advisee
3. Collaborators or co-authors for the past 48 months
4. Any other individual or institution with which the investigator has financial ties

• No

Expertise. Provide your expertise in the topic area of this paper.

• 4 – Expert
• 3 – Knowledgeable
• 2 – Passing Knowledge
• 1 – No Knowledge
  • 2 – Passing Knowledge

Summary. Please summarize what you believe are the paper’s main contributions to the field of soft robotics.

1. The paper introduces a completely soft valve that can be flexible enough to independently control five antennas. Additionally, the process to create the component does not seem to require specialized software and makes use of inexpensive material. These characteristics offer a new method to improve soft robotic components fabrication and implementation within other robots.

Strengths and Weaknesses. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of this work? Does the paper have strengths in originality and novelty?

1. The main strengths of this work are its accessibility and explanation of its several processes. The narrative structure within the paper makes for an easy-to-understand read which is supported by its several figures which provide clear visuals. Its major weakness maybe its writing. It seems that the work may have been translated from another language as certain sentences are awkward.

Soundness. Are the ideas, algorithms, results or studies technologically/methodologically sound?

1. The ideas seem to be both technologically and methodologically sound as the processes discussed do not require advanced equipment, rather materials that are currently being used. The extensive documentation provided about the fabrication process adds to its credibility.

Related Work. Does the paper adequately describe related and prior work?

1. The paper uses prior work to center itself within the greater soft robotics discussion while simultaneously providing a solution that addresses the limitations of past work.

Presentation. Is the paper well organized, well written and clearly presented?

1. The paper is well organized and clearly presented. The main area that is lacking is its writing. The problem/solution structure used in the introduction provides a solid foundation that is built upon in the rest of the paper. With more revisions, I believe the writing can be fixed and further elevate this paper.

Suggestions. Do you have suggestions for improving this paper?

1. One suggestion would be to further edit the paper’s writing. Although it did not make the entire paper unreadable, it confused at times. Improved grammar will help this paper be more coherent.

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: 

1. I believe the paper has enough originality and importance to merit publication. Not only is the paper relevant to the field, but it provides a methodology that aims to simplify fabrication and increase its versatility.

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.
  • 4