Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 28, 2020
Decision Letter - Ning Cai, Editor

PONE-D-20-05874

Negshell casting: 3D-printed structured and sacrificial cores for soft robot fabrication

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Preechayasomboon,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 30 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ning Cai, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that Figures in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a)    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b)    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors presented a novel fabrication method for soft robots. In this paper, the negshell casting was used in the bellow-jointed finger. The experimental data fit well with the original design idea. However, the reviewer still have some comments:

1. The fragment of the negshell may do harm to the soft material, and reduce the life of the robot.

2. Also, the fragment of the negshell may block the inner channel of the robot.

3. In my opinoin, the authors should consider the circle life of the actuator due to the questions I mentioned above.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript, "Negshell casting: 3D-printed structured and sacrificial cores for soft robot fabrication" by Preechayasomboon and Romobokas, presents an interesting idea that can be employed in fabricating 3D-printed structures, especially for soft robotics. When fabricating a hollow 3D printed structure using stereolithography (SLA) based methods (and, in fact, with fused deposition model (FDM) based methods as well), users face problems of dealing with unwanted auxiliary structures. When a 'hollow' space is programmed, such space is usually filled with artifacts with some geometric features that the printing algorithm determines. Such filled artifacts are often nuisance. The authors of this manuscript made a contrarian perspective to design 'sacrificial artifact' to fill the internal volume when 3D-printing such hollow structure, and named this fabrication method as "negshell casting", as an acronym for negatice-space eggshell casting.

I rate this idea to be extremely practical and useful. Although this is not a profound science, such simple idea can really make contribution to wide fields of science and engineering that utilizes 3D printing as a tool. The authors included details in design and fabrication, and included an interesting application example of a pneumatic gripper that can perform pick and place. The detailed writing style of the manuscript is consistent with the purpose of PLOS ONE as an open-source of ideas. I would like to recommend a publication of this paper with the current form.

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Dear Dr.Ning Cai & Reviewers,

First of all, we would like to thank the editors and all reviewers for their valuable input for our paper. We present here a revised copy of our manuscript. We would like to point out issues raised in the original review and letter with the following:

1.To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io

Response: We have opted to use GitHub as our repository for the project instead as protocols.io requires a paid plan for projects larger than 100MB and has a strict layout, which is not ideal for engineering projects. We host our data and protocols on GitHub Pages instead: https://negshell.github.io/, this gives us much more flexibility in terms of presentation and content.

2. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements

Response: We have read through our manuscript carefully to ensure that it complies to the PLOS One formatting guidelines and have touched up any mistakes found.

3.We note that Figures in your submission contain copyrighted images

Response: We were unsure which figure had copyrighted images, as all figures were generated by ourselves. Figure 17 is the only image that has possibly copyrighted material: the logo of a whiteboard marker company. We have edited the Figure to not contain the logo. Any other logo (Rombolabs, VA, CLiMB, etc. are our own and we have the right to use them along with our affiliation with the respective groups)

4. From Reviewer 1:

"1. The fragment of the negshell may do harm to the soft material, and reduce the life of the robot.

2. Also, the fragment of the negshell may block the inner channel of the robot.

3. In my opinoin, the authors should consider the circle life of the actuator due to the questions I mentioned above."

Response: Reviewer 1 has brought up a good point about the longevity of negshell-produced soft robots. We agree that the fragments can cause issues if cross-hatch is designed improperly. Blockage can be mitigated by making the pattern smaller than the smallest orifice in the design thus even if a fragment is lodged in an orifice, the fragment will have perforations to allow fluids to travel through. As for the sharpness of the fragments, we argue that as the fragments are created while physically crushing the negshell cores during the fabrication process, the soft material used must be able to mechanically withstand them anyways. Our fabrication process would be invalidated if they were in fact causing damage to the structure, which our prototypes and experiments show otherwise. Furthermore, we have found that the 0.4 mm thickness negshell cores are in fact soft and compliant themselves, though this is not covered in the paper as we did not rigorously characterize them. We have addressed these issues in our revised manuscript in the Discussion section.

We hope that the revisions satisfy the reviewers concerns, and are welcome to any additional comments.

Thank you & Best regards,

Pornthep Preechayasomboon

Eric Rombokas

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Negshell PLOS One Rebuttal Letter.pdf
Decision Letter - Ning Cai, Editor

Negshell casting: 3D-printed structured and sacrificial cores for soft robot fabrication

PONE-D-20-05874R1

Dear Dr. Preechayasomboon,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Ning Cai, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Ning Cai, Editor

PONE-D-20-05874R1

Negshell casting: 3D-printed structured and sacrificial cores for soft robot fabrication

Dear Dr. Preechayasomboon:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ning Cai

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .