Dunn’s Peer Review

DOI: 10.1109/HSI47298.2019.8942609

  1. Do you have any conflict of interest in reviewing this paper?


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

No Knowledge 

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

Though not related to soft robotics on the surface. This paper is the foundation for more human-soft-robots collaboration and interaction. The main concern of human-robot collaboration is safety, as typical robots are made from hard materials, which can easily cause major damage to the human body. Soft, complaint materials, combined with the finding of this paper, could bring about a more effective and safer iteration of human-robot collaboration.  

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

The paper is strong because it is very original and novel. The concept is untested and new. Therefore, it is also the reason why it has some jarring weaknesses.

Firstly, the paper can be repetitive sometimes. For example, the phrase “dynamic affect-based human-robot collaborative strategy” or phrases alike are often seen in the same paragraph, making the paper wordier and harder to read.

Secondly, the section regarding the process of the experiments was hard to read. The authors’ naming convention for objects, locations, and participants (letters or letters with digits) complicates the reading. I constantly go back and forth on different pages to refer to the figures. Additionally, labeling locations, objects, and participants in the images was not precise.

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

Despite my criticisms of the author’s writing style, I find the process logical. The authors first studied the affective features in a human-human collaborative environment and then applied the result in similar human-robot collaborative applications.

One thing I do question is the robot’s expression. I do think the expressions so far are lacking in variety since humans are much more complex emotional beings. However, I do understand the scope of this paper does not encompass psychology. A more complex display of the expression could potentially enhance the collaborative performance.    

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

The paper describes the related and prior work both adequately and succinctly.  

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

Overall, the paper is well-written and clear. Some parts can be improved, such as parts mentioned above.

  • Suggestions. Do you have suggestions for improving this paper?

Reduce repetition.

Better image documentation

Use a less boring, more engaging way to describe the process. 

  • 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:

Yes, I believe so. It is not extremely relevant yet to soft robotics; however, I see great potential in the field, especially combining the affect-based robot motion control and soft, compliant material construction, which would make the collaborative process safer, thus, higher performance.

  1. Overall Rating. Provide your overall rating of the paper (5 is best)
    1. 5 – Definite accept: I would argue strongly for accepting this paper.

Leave a Reply