New Technology for Production of Dicyclopentadiene and Methyl-Dicyklopentadiene

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the article is interesting and the manuscript is well written. The manuscript may be recommended for publication in its current form.

Author Response

Dear Editors,

We would like to thank very much to Reviewer 1 for careful reading and recommendation for publication in its current form.

Thank you

Sincerely

Tomas Herink

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have two remarks

 

1) The reaction figure on page 1 has a wrong sign. I think it is °C. But I see a chinese sign.

2) The table 1 is not readable. You wirite in the first row unit wt%. But then you write min.. Please improve the table i.e. 80 ( after 78 min).

 

BR

The reviewer

 

Author Response

Dear Editors,

We would like to thank very much to Reviewer 2 for careful reading and valuable comments helping the manuscript to improve. Please find bellow our responses to comments and recommendations.

Thank you

Sincerely

Tomas Herink

 Reviewer 2

 1) The reaction figure on page 1 has a wrong sign. I think it is °C. But I see a chinese sign.

It was corrected, there is no Chinese characters in revised manuscript.

2) The table 1 is not readable. You wirite in the first row unit wt%. But then you write min.. Please improve the table i.e. 80 ( after 78 min).

Table was improved.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My opinion is that the paper can be accepted in its current form without substantial changes. However, I ask the authors to review the reversible equation on page 1, where some Chinese characters appeared, at least on the copy that reached to me.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript looks like a technical report. DCPD production in ORLEN Unipetrol does not include satisfactory information for the readers. The quality of presented work is very low. Hence, I would reject the current version and suggest a resubmission.

Reviewer 3 Report

The present manuscript needs to be modified thoroughly. An additional explanation is required.

 

1. Author should provide the comparison of present method with other reported methods.
2. Title should be revised as it confuses the readers. Is it review or research paper?
3. Comparison data with other monomers should be provided. How present materials are better than others.
4. Author should abbreviate the terms used in table 1.
5. Author should represent schematically how much DCPD used regionwise?