Simulation of the Process of Obtaining Nanoparticles by Thermal Decomposition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The experiment should be described more precisely (the data inputted to the software should be in the supplementary materials). 

In the manuscript is only very poor discussion. I recommend to add discussion with other scientific papers and reveal cause of water / ethanol impact on thermal decomposition (is it difference between thermal conductivity of water / ethanol or other parameters)?

"Author Contributions" section is not fill on (it is only filled on by text from template).

Author Response

The article has been corrected. I added a more extended description of the results. As for the data that is entered in the software, I can not imagine them. Therefore, when modeling, the program automatically substitutes data from its library and calculates. Therefore, I can present only the results obtained and compare them.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is poorly written and needs to be largely reworked. The organization is not clear. The paper cannot be published in its current form, and a major revision is required to final paper.

“Abstract” section: I would suggest that the authors revise it to be more focused on achievements. As for now, there is no important findings in this research presetned in the “Abstract”.

“Keywords” section: remember to remove “(List three to ten pertinent keywords 15 specific to the article; yet reasonably common within the subject discipline.)” in the final version of the transcript.

"Introduction" section: Paper is about simulation of thermal decomposition but lack of information about it. Introduction must provide a comprehensive critical review of recent developments in a specific area or theme that is within the scope of the journal. In the current form, the authors describe nothing what other researchers have done in this kind of simulation. I suggest add important and new articles from this field.

All the Figures are presented without an in-depth discussion/explanation. This is a scientific paper, not a lab report. Hope the author could take it more seriously.  

Page 3, Ln 67-76 “Supplementary Materials”, “Acknowledgments” and “Author Contributions”: I think the authors simply copy and paste “Instruction for Authors” to their manuscript. 

References: The reference format could be made more uniform and consistent. I don’t think Reference [2] could be considered as a reference.

Author Response

All comments have been corrected. But I want to add that I can not imagine the modeling calculations, because this program automatically selects data from the library and calculates. I can only provide the results obtained and describe them.

No funding has been provided for this item. Therefore, I did not understand what to write in the Acknowledgments section.

Reference [3] is relevant for this work because I used it when I wrote the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

“Keywords” section: please remove “(List three to ten pertinent keywords 15 specific to the article; yet reasonably common within the subject discipline.)”. 

Other than this, the authors followed comments and revised the manuscript in a satisfactory manner. I would recommend this paper to be published in condensed matter.