Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors 
The reviewed article is very interesting. Below are some informative questions. 

1. Figures 1 and 2 should contain the axes of symmetry. 

2. What measure of scattering did the Authors used in Fig. 11? 
Sincerely

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer comments of the paper «The Influence of Crystal Orientation on Subsurface Damage of Mono-crystalline Silicon by Bound-abrasive Grinding»- Reviewer

The authors presented an article «The Influence of Crystal Orientation on Subsurface Damage of Mono-crystalline Silicon by Bound-abrasive Grinding». However, there are several points in the article that require further explanation.

Comment 1:

The abstract needs to be completed. Demonstrate in the abstract novelty, practical significance. Add quantitative and qualitative work results to the abstract.

Comment 2:

Introduction

The introduction is well written. However, at the end of the introduction, add a clear and understandable purpose of the article.

Comment 3:

2. Experiments

Why was Rz and not Ra assessed as a controlled parameter? What is the reason?

For measurement devices, software and machines used in research, indicate in parentheses (manufacturer, city, country).

Provide a more detailed description and explanation in the text of Figure 3. What is the reason for the microprofile pattern and what does it tell the reader?

Comment 4:

3. The modeling of predicting SSD

Are all the formulas in the article original? If not needed appropriate citations.

Make sure that after each formula, the first used physical parameter is described and decoded.

Are all the figures in the article original? If not needed appropriate citations and publisher permissions.

Comment 5:

4. Results and discussion

Describe in more detail in the text of the figures 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

Comment 6:

It will be useful to add a section of Nomenclature in which to sign all the physical quantities and abbreviations encountered in the article. There are many physical quantities in the text and such a section will help to find the description of the necessary element.

For example,

a_p              : Depth of cut (um)

SSD          : Sub-surface damage

etc.

Comment 7:

The conclusions need to be improved.

What is the novelty of the article? What is the practical significance? What are the differences from previous works?

Provide quantitative and qualitative conclusions for each parameter under study.

Conclusions should reflect the purpose of the article.

 

The article is interesting. However, the article needs to be improved. Authors should carefully study the comments and make improvements to the article step by step. All changes should be highlighted in color. After major changes can an article be considered for publication in the "Micromachines".

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

The front part of the attachment is the revised paper, and the back part is the reply to the reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have improved the article according to the comments. The article can now be published.