Sustainable Approach to Metal Coin Canceling Methods, Using 3D Modeling and Finite Element Method Analysis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.Introduction: I personally feel that this part of paper is not concise enough from a reader's perspective. Introduction must provide a comprehensive critical review of recent developments in a specific area or theme that is within the scope of the journal.
2.The strengths and limitations of the applied approach should be clearly identified for the readers of the paper.
3.Part results is too small for good JCR journal
4.All variables parameters should be written in italic style. The discussion is shallow and needs more details, the observations and future trends. This chapter should be connected with others published papers. Some of the bullet points on the conclusion are simplistic; Please try to emphasize your novelty, put some quantifications, and comment on the limitations. This is a very common way to write conclusions for a learned academic journal. The conclusions should highlight the novelty and advance in understanding presented in the work.
5.Please improve English and engage native proof-reader if available.
6.Abstract is reflect the content and summarize the problem, the method, the results, and the conclusions.
7.Please modify the quality of all figures, which is far away from publication.
8. The result and discussion section lacks a proper scientific explanation.
9.The conclusion is difficult to understand as it is a paragraph. please try to re-write it in bullet points for better clarity.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study explores sustainable methods for cancelling metal coins, employing 3D modeling and FEM analysis to assess the effectiveness of different cancellation methods.
However, the following clarifications need to be addressed before considering the article.
The manuscript does not provide details on the mesh used, including the type of elements and mesh dimensions.
There is no information on any sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of parameter variations on the model.
A description of the type of contact used in the analysis is missing, which is crucial for accurately modeling the interaction between the coins and the matrix.
It is unclear whether a non-linear analysis, appropriate for this type of simulation, has been conducted.
Without experimental validation, it is impossible to verify the FEM results' accuracy against physical reality; a literature search on experimental results has been conducted.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The main question addressed by the research: There are introduced the assembled models, corresponding to each cancelling case, which consist by the obverse and reverse cancelling dies, having the coin inside them. For the each model, the finite element analysis is realized and is achieved for different initial conditions.
2. The topic is quite original and relevant in this area. However, this does not eliminate the main gaps in this area.
3. The purpose of the work: By the proposed sustainable approach, the contribution of the paper is useful in further research on different metal coins, as well as for the market value establishing for the subjected pieces. A close to reality estimated catalogue value is able to increase the potential collector confidence and promote the good practices in the collecting issues field.
4. The article needs improvement: The introduction and conclusion require revision in accordance with the purpose of the work. Adaptation and adequacy verification are not provided for the 3D model. The English language needs improvement. The design of the article should be improved in accordance with the requirements of the editorial board.
5. Discussion of the results requires scientific refinement.
6. Bibliographic references are not wide enough in geography.
7. The figures need to be improved in terms of understanding their meaning. The work has theoretical and practical significance. In general, the article can be accepted for publication after revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have responded to the questions raised about their study. They have provided comprehensive and detailed clarifications on all the points I raised.
