Surface Laser Treatment of Cast Irons: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Néstor Catalán et al review paper titled on “Surface laser treatment of cast irons” has been reviewed thoroughly. In this paper, the authors reviewed the important of LST technique over the others like LSM and LSH with the various experimental evidence like laser power, scanning velocity, interaction time, composition, hardness, and wear reported in the literature. The way of organization and presentation of this work is good. However, the present state of the review manuscript is not suitable for Metals Journal publication. I recommend this work accepted in this journal after addressing the following comments seriously. Authors are asked to do the revision very carefully, otherwise is not considered further.
Some comments for improvements,
- Check language and grammar thoroughly in the manuscript.
- Authors are requested to cite very recent references related to this work in the introduction section.
- Make sure all abbreviations are written out in full the first time used (for example C, Si, Mn, P, S, Mo, Cr, Ni..).
- The authors should use Figure 1 instead of see Figure 1. Follow this throughout the manuscript.
- Use approximately symbol only in Line 173.
- Please use full form of the sentence only one time like laser surface treatment...
- Please change the Table 1 format style.
- Avoid abbreviation in the heading and subheading (Line 240).
- Figure X in the Line 381 changed to Figure 10.
- Define 1D and 3D first before abbreviated (Line 420).
- 975°C changed to 975 °C.
- The authors provided too many Figures in the review paper. So, the authors are advised to post an important figures or authors can merge some of the figures like 37, 34, 33, 29, 30, 27, 28, 22,23, 19, 16, 17. It is better to reduce the Figure numbers less than 20. I noted, some figure qualities (resolution) are poor and this needs to be improved.
- The conclusions of this review are especially important for this. Therefore, please try to Sharpen this further. The optimal Conclusion section should include the following, 1. A synopsis of the new findings, 2. A highlight of your hypothesis, new concepts, and innovations, 3. and to emphasize the ways in which the new results have advanced the field and 4. Your vision for future work. Conclusion should be clear and some important message.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is a review of works on the subject of surface laser treatment of cast irons. It seems to me that such a review can be useful and, in general, its publication is expedient.
It seems to me that the volume of this article (35 pages, 37 illustrations) is too large - I recommend dividing the article into two parts for better understanding.
It makes no sense to introduce a large number of abbreviations in the Abstract, most of which are not used yet (in the Abstract).
In general, I think that part of the text can be shortened. For example, Section 2 contains a lot of commonly known material, which is more appropriate for a student textbook than for a review in a scientific journal.
Figures 11 and 26 - the quality is unsatisfactory.
In my opinion, the main drawback of the article in its current form is the lack of a unified system for presenting information. In particular, I would like to see a comparison of different methods (ideally - in the form of a table), an indication of the advantages and disadvantages. In its current form, the overview is often simply a listing of individual results, grouped into sections. The basis of the review article is the information presentation system. So far, I don't see such a system.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Néstor Catalán et al revised review paper titled on “Surface laser treatment of cast irons” has been reviewed thoroughly. I really appreciate the authors done a wonderful job for improved the paper quality. Therefore, I recommend this work will accept in the Metals Journal .
Author Response
The authors truthfully appreciate the reviewer's comments that helped improve significantly the quality of the paper. Minor changes were made to take into account the notes from the academic editor. We hope these changes are approved by the reviewer.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors took into account the recommendations of the reviewer and made a number of important corrections. I believe that the revised manuscript can be recommended for publication.
Author Response
The authors truthfully appreciate the reviewer's comments that helped improve significantly the quality of the paper. Minor changes were made to take into account the notes from the academic editor. We hope these changes are approved by the reviewer.
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
The article presents a literature review on laser surface treatments of different types of cast irons.
The article is clear, well-argued and its structure is also correct.
The use of English and the way of describing the review is correct.
The references are appropriate, they follow the style of the journal and are well integrated into it, following the argument of the authors.
Publication is recommended provided that the following changes are taken into account:
- It is recommended to include the meaning of each acronym the first time it appears in the article, regardless of whether it appears in the abstract. For example: Page 2, second paragraph, line 57: LSM.
- In the case of the grey cast Irons, it seems that the information included is limited, only three papers are referenced, focusing mainly on results related to the defects, hardness and microstructure of the treated area. There is a lack of more studies to complement the articles reviewed, as well as articles related to wear resistance and residual stresses, as extensively analysed in the case of laser treatment of the other two groups of cast steels. Examples of possible study to include in the review are:
- Sci. 2020, 10, 3049; doi:10.3390/app10093049”
- Thesis of Oliveira from University of Groningen: Laser treatment of alloys (available online in the website of the University)
Author Response
Please see the attachment for a better understanding of the changes in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is a review on laser surface treatment if cast iron. Unfortunately it does neither cover the topic in the required extension (only few papers are reviewed) nor with the appropriate depth. The main results of the papers quoted are summarily presented but the scientific and technical basis of these surface engineering methods are totally ignored.
Author Response
Please see the attachment for a better understanding of the changes in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The study reviews the experimental aspects involved in the surface laser treatment on four kinds of cast irons. The main scientific and technological challenges regarding LSE techniques applied to cast irons are also highlighted. Here are some comments:
- The comprehensive research background of laser surface engineering is suggested to be added in the introduction.
- More discussion regarding the effects of laser treatment on the surface microstructure of different alloys should be performed.
- Copyrights for all figures should be stated in the caption.
- Too many figures, some in the same chapter can be combined.
- The quality for Figures 1, 3, 4, 17, 21, etc. needs to be improved.
- The division of paragraphs is puzzling for the readers, the content of the same aspect should be sorted into the same paragraph.
- In page 22, more examples and discussions suggest adding to support the conclusion on “It is recommended to perform LSE with single-passes…”.
- Future developing prospects should also put forward for a review article.
- The references are old, more literature in the last three years should be cited.
Author Response
Please see the attachment for a better understanding of the changes in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have modified the document in accordance with the suggested changes.
Reviewer 2 Report
I still do not see how this review advances in relation to former reviews, published several years ago. Quoting the authors "It is worth noting that laser surface hardening (LSH) and melting (LSM) in cast irons has not been widely explored in the last decade (in comparison with other laser processes involving cutting, drilling or additive manufacturing) and thus most of the relevant works are included in this review." If there is no new work in the area why does one needs to review it? There are lots of interesting topics to discuss, let's not fill the pages of scientific journal with irrelevant publications.
Reviewer 3 Report
It is suggested to accept the manuscript.
