Peer-Review Record
Pool Boiling Performance of Multilayer Micromeshes for Commercial High-Power Cooling
Micromachines 2021, 12(8), 980; https://doi.org/10.3390/mi12080980
Reviewer 1:
Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Anonymous
Micromachines 2021, 12(8), 980; https://doi.org/10.3390/mi12080980
Submission received: 20 July 2021
/
Revised: 12 August 2021
/
Accepted: 16 August 2021
/
Published: 18 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Microsystem for Electronic Devices)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please find the review in the enclosed document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
- A complete nomenclature is needed for all abbreviations, subscripts, and parameters in the equations.
- The title of the manuscript should be sharper.
- The originality of the paper needs to be stated clearly. It is of importance to have sufficient results to justify the novelty of a high-quality journal paper. The Introduction should make a compelling case for why the study is useful along with a clear statement of its novelty or originality by providing relevant information and providing answers to basic questions such as: What is already known in the open literature? What is missing (i.e., research gaps)? What needs to be done, why and how? Clear statements of the novelty of the work should also appear briefly in the Abstract and Conclusions sections.
- More explanation is required in results and discussion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
- Institutional email address should be provided instead of personal ones (163.com)
- Professional English proofreading is mandatory, at its current state, it is hardly difficult to follow due to the poor English level.
- Revise units within the manuscript, there are several errors
- Avoid commercialising on Figure 2
- Provide data range of the setup equipment
- Authors should validate their results through extensive experimental campaign considering wider temperature range
- Conclusions should provided further insight rather than summarising paper results
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript can be accepted for publication in the present form.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is improved significantly.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for considering comments and suggestions accordingly, final English editing revision should be performed
