On the M23C6-Carbide in 2205 Duplex Stainless Steel: An Unexpected (M23C6/Austenite)—Eutectoid in the δ-Ferritic Matrix
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a novel experimental study that should be published nearly as submitted. My only concern is that some of the terminology is not known to anyone but specialists. For example:
What does M stand for in M_{23}C_6? Any of several metals, but which? What does K stand for (surely not potassium)?
Tell the reader a little more about this complicated stoichiometry.
Give a reference (textbook or monograph) for the various crystallographic phases discussed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find the response to your questions/comments.
The revised manuscript will be sent as soon as possible.
Best regards,
Abdelkrim Redjaimia
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Reviewer Comments
- The title looks complicated. Please make it simple with a full meaning.
- Please modify your keywords, select the main words to attract the readers.
- Please customize the table style and follow the journal table template.
- Please remove the table frame of the image of each figure.
- The abstract section is well done. However, there are many words. Please summary the meaning of your research with the same meaning and provide further information and it is simple to figure out.
- The introduction section is quite good, however, please provide more detailed information such as unsolved problem, purpose, method and conclusion.
- Please check the vocabulary in section 3.2 (line-285).
- Conclusion and discussion must be separated. Please clarify and conclude the meaning to make the readers uncomplicated to understand.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find the response to your questions/comments concerning the manuscript we submitted to Metals journal.
Best regards,
Abdelkrim Redjaïmia
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, the topic and the resuts obtained are interesting. In my opinion there is no in-depth explanation and discussion about the results. Here some suggestion/questions:
It is better to insert a table indicating the thermal treatment features (time, temperature and cooling) of each specimen. Moreover, indicate them during discussion
Specimen dimension? Is it possible that fun-air cooling act as water quenching?
Which are the microstructure after each treatment? The delta/gamma ratio? The austenite morpologies?
Row 111_Do K carbide acts as nucleation site for sigma? Is it like an onion-shell precipitation?
Row 113_I’m not sure, in this case K in not soluble (Cr and Mo carbide are strong stable) and the non-solubility of C is the consequence…
Row 117_ The increase in Ni amount around the carbide (so decreasing Cr in the matrix) promotes the nucleation of gamma and not the gamma island formation. It is about nanoscale
Most of Section 3.3 is theory, in this part results and brief discussion are expected
Row 239_ What do you mean with supercell? What about epitaxial nucleation
Section 3.5 Which are the atoms that play an important role in the crystal architecture? Is it also related to the thermal treatment? Could a free precipitation zone or a segregation zone condition this packaging? And could be the solute drag from a grain boundary e also important?
A discussion about section 3.6 is totally missing. This section is unusefull for the rest of the paper
Row 509_ That is really interesting. You have not mentioned the pearlitic transformation before. This parallelism need to be further investigate and better discussed? So have we a cardide lamella formation and the contouring matrix poor of delta element transform in gamma? Or have we the formation of gamma with delta elements depletion and so the carbide lamella?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please find the response to your questions/comments concerning the manuscript we submitted to Metals journal.
Best regards,
Abdelkrim Redjaïmia
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The quality of paper is very improved.
It is already to meet the publication.
Thank you.
Author Response
Reply to Academic Editor Please find the indication concerning the improved manuscript:Section 2:
The specimen size are added (See Page 3, line 85)
The chemical etchant is added (See Page 3, lines 98-100)
Section 3:
The microstructure after each heat treatment are given in detailed study reported in References 19-20. (See Page 3, line 99-101)
The caption of figure 12 is reintroduced (See Figure 12)
Section 4: The section labelled ("4. Conclusion and Discussion") is adapted to ("4. Discussion). There is no Conclusion (not mandatory).
The corrections and comments have been sent in detail to the Reviewers (See the last messages)
Another point: The reference numbering is adapted and updated.
The revised version is uploaded for you convenience.(A .pdf version can be also uploaded, if necessary)
Best regards,
Abdelkrim REDJAÏMIA
