Other acceptable options are:
The first option is the safest because it matches the available evidence without implying a specific class of articulated parts that the current sources do not directly establish.
I would not keep this wording:
reciprocating rotation of articulated mechanical components
The problem is not the ideas of rotation, reciprocation, or machinery. Those are supported in a broader sense. The weak point is the very specific object phrase “articulated mechanical components.” The current evidence points more clearly to rotational machinery, mechanical systems, and vibration-to-rotation mechanisms, not specifically to articulated components such as robotic joints, linkage mechanisms, articulated arms, or hinged machinery.
If this sentence is only a broad background statement in the Introduction — and you are no longer strictly limiting the search by journal-zone or ranking filters — write it broadly:
Energy harvesting from rotational motions in mechanical systems has attracted increasing research interest.
If you need to preserve the “reciprocating” meaning, use:
Energy harvesting from reciprocating or rotational motions in mechanical systems has attracted increasing research interest.
If the later manuscript specifically discusses robotic joints, articulated arms, linkage mechanisms, or hinged machinery, then you should run a separate targeted search for those exact application objects. Based on the current source set, the broader wording is more defensible.