AA7075-ZrO2 Nanocomposites Produced by the Consecutive Solid-State Process: A Review of Characterisation and Potential Applications
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The review manuscript presented by Sabbar et al., is well conducted and scientifically correct. In my opinion the manuscript could be accepted after minor revision. In order to collaborate, I have some comments:
1- In my opinion the title does not reflect the manuscript. I expected more details regarding the AA7075/ZrO2 nanocomposite. However, the recycling techniques are detailed. Maybe a rearrangement in the Title or a more resumed 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 sections may be indicated.
Also, unify the terms "AA7075/ZrO2" as present in title or "AA7075-ZrO2" as showed in the manuscript.
2- Line 47. "...The low melting point temperature of cast aluminium..." Please, include the melting temperature range in this sentence.
3- line 106. The authors may change Materials and Methods section title. It is more indicated for experimental manuscripts.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Best regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The English language is generally good. However, the authors use both American and British spelling; this should be corrected. Also, the word combination "light weight" should read as one word, i.e. "lightweight".
This work is devoted to the study of the properties of multicomponent alloys belonging to the category of high-entropy alloys, is of great scientific and practical importance.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The title should be revised as ‘A comprehensive review on… process’. This is not a research paper, ‘study’ here is not appropriate.
The abstract is not well organised. It should summarise the research background, what has been done is this review and what are the main conclusions and future research directions and trends.
Delete 1-5 in the keywords.
In the introduction, the necessity of this review is missing. The authors should make it clear why this review is necessary, urgent, and important. For instance, are there any existing reviews on this topic? If so, what are the differences between them and this manuscript?
‘However, the aforementioned study failed to optimise the physical and mechanical properties of the composite material. Furthermore, the application of ECAP following the extrusion was also left uncovered by previous studies.’ Again, this is a review paper not a research paper, it should mention the limitations of previous similar reviews and specify why this review is needed and what it is for.
The subtitles need to be changed accordingly, e.g. 2. Materials and Methods. Currently these are for research papers.
Overall, too many basic but general knowledge/details have been included in the text, they should be largely deleted, instead, too few specific research literatures have been included and analysed.
Line 256-259, ‘There are several techniques associated with SPD’, please included some recently developed techniques with SPD, such as doi: 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2019.03.002; 10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2017.12.001
There is a lack of appropriate figures or diagrams in the text for better illustration of different processes.
The use of ‘the current study’, ‘the current research’ in the text have appeared quite a few times, these are not appropriate, it is a review paper not a research paper. In the main body of the text, it should analyse the past literature and make discussions.
The discussion section is missing. It is expected that some summary and analysis should be given and discussed before any conclusions can be drawn. What can be learnt from all of the listed references? What are the pros and cons for all the reviewed consecutive solid-state processes? What are the related applications?
It is expected that future research trends should be given. Judging from the current state of the art, what are the future development trends? These should be presented at the last.
The text needs extensive editing, Among others, to just list a few:
Line 74, ‘.[17]I’
Line 83, ’. at present’
Line 91, ‘chips [5]’
Line 153, ‘of The composite’
Line 275, ‘applications. conducted’
Author Response
Please see attachment
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been improved. However, some revisions are still needed. Line 258-261, Reference number 50, 51 and specific references are not correct according to the previous comments. The reference 50 should not be the reference 50 in Table 2, and the reference 51 should not be the reference 51 in Line 266. As such, Reference 50, 51 in Line 258-261 should be revised and renumbered, and reference number in line 266 and all afterwards should be renumbered.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have fixed the reference numbers 51, 52 and all that afterwards, but the specific references 51 and 52 are still not correct. These sentences referred by 51 and 52 are added according to the comments in the first round, please refer to your previous response 8 to revise these two references. Severe plastic deformation induced a high dislocation density (Manufacturing a curved profile with fine grains and high strength...), Severe plastic deformation of the extrudate occurs in a way similar to channel angular extrusion (CAE), thus an extensively promoted practical strain level is achieved, though it is not always uniform across a section (that is definitely reported from: Feasibility studies of a novel extrusion process for curved profiles..)
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
