Tribocorrosion-Resistant Surface for TiO2 as a Function of Load and Sliding Speed
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper “Tribocorrosion-Resistant Surface for TiO2 as a Function of Load 2 and Sliding Speed” deals with quite interesting topics. The matter is relevant enough, and the methods employed are quite novel. On these grounds, I believe that this paper has potential and should be published after minor reviews, some of which are going to be pointed out in this letter:
Abstract should write the application of the study in the last sentence.
Novelty is not clearly mentioned in the paper.
Figure 5 needs more explanation
Scientific reasons for the Fig. 6 trends are missing.
Why rate of wear as a function of loads and sliding speeds in Fig 8 are different. Explain?
This paper is well written and no need to further improve.
The abstract should contain the following sequence:
a. The current issue relating to TOPIC
b. Research Design
c. Method of data analysis
d. Main findings (% improvement)
The introduction section should be structured in a way that the reader should be able to:
a. Understand the overall topic;
b. Understand the existing gap;
c. Understand how this paper is going to contribute to this gap;
d; Add more reference particular for year 2018 and 2019 and from Lubricant journal e.g.,
1. Dong P, Zhang Y, Zhu S, Nie Z, Ma H, Liu Q, Li J. First-Principles Study on the Adsorption Characteristics of Corrosive Species on Passive Film TiO2 in a NaCl Solution Containing H2S and CO2. Metals. 2022; 12(7):1160. https://doi.org/10.3390/met12071160
2. Zhang, P., Liu, J., Gao, Y., Liu, Z., & Mai, Q. (2023). Effect of heat treatment process on the micro machinability of 7075 aluminum alloy. Vacuum, 207, 111574. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2022.111574
3. Yang, J., Bai, S., Sun, J., Wu, H., Sun, S., Wang, S.,... Xu, D. (2023). Microstructural understanding of the oxidation and inter-diffusion behavior of Cr-coated Alloy 800H in supercritical water. Corrosion Science, 211, 110910. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2022.110910
• Conclusion
The conclusions are presented in topics, which I believe were a good choice by the authors. This section, however, could be improved should the authors agree to a deeper discussion of their results according to the literature.
This section should contain the following:
a. The major contribution of the paper
b. Main findings
c. Implications of the findings to theory and practice
d. Major limitation(s) of the paper and application of your work
e. Direction for future research.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The Design of experiment is poorly explained. The connection between very general info in the Introduction and the actual study - sample production techniques etc is weak. This must be improved.
Follow my notes in the pdf-file for all of this remarks and also other, minor, language and formal problems indicated there.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Please go carefully through the manuscript pdf, follow my notes and replace incomplete sentences and other problematic points. Check also again my first Report.
I do not want to read the text again. It is suitable for publication - but be patient and take care to improve the minor points to make the manuscript finalized.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
All their suggestions were considered to improve the quality of the manuscript. We appreciate his valuable contributions.
