Surface Hardening of Machine Parts Using Nitriding and TiN Coating Deposition in Glow Discharge

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting and potentially useful work - I have a number of comments:

1)The work describes surface hardening processes, NOT strengthening, a completely different property. Please correct everywhere in the paper including in the abstract 

2) Because of 1) the title does not accurately reflect the work carried out. I suggest something like: "Surface hardening of machine parts using a combination nitriding and TiN coating process in Glow Discharge Plasma"

3) All methods used (e.g. microhardness in page 8-9 and the production of the reference material) should be moved to "Materials and Methods". They tend to confuse the results presentation and discussions. 

4) All unnecessary comments and unscientific opinions such as "The above research yielded quite fruitful results" (page 9) should be removed.

5) In the discussion, comments comparing these and previous results should be referenced (e.g. comments starting with "Compared with ...)

6) Many of the comments in the discussion explaining how various problems were solved should be moved under Results or Methods

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

l. 221: That the film is TiN is assumed because of the gold color. An analytical proof should be presented (e.g. XRD, XPS etc.).

l. 300: "and contain only one TiN phase." Provide some proof.

The thickness decreases with distance from the Ti source. Does the composition of the film also change with distance?

Some more analytical data about the film should be added.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript titled "Combined Strengthening of Machine Parts in Glow Discharge Plasma" deals with the adjustment of regimes of the glow discharge plasma unit. In fact, the manuscript does not give any data about coating properties, so the readers can not judge about strength or hardness, and I guess the title should be changed. A hardness mentioned in 2 sentences only. The current version of the title confuses too much.

In general, the soundness of the manuscript is quite good, meanwhile, several crucial points are missing. 

• The aim of work is not specified in the Introduction 
• The conclusion part is missing, the numbering of chapters is not correct 
• What is the goal of part 6 with patents? If there is something worthy, it can be added to the reference list.   
• The list of references contains too many self-citations. It is not acceptable  
• Color can not be used as evidence of TiN formation
• Adhesion might be discussed deeply, this type of coatings was studied on dozens of articles
• The authors use the same references in the discussion part as in the introduction
• Figure 2 and 3 captions don't provide enough information

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors modified the manuscript in accordance with comments.

After correction of Materials and Methods part, it will be acceptable for publication:

- XRD (mode, resolution, exposure and etc.), scratch test (type of indenter, loads and etc.) and indentation details are missing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf