Quality Assurance in Resistance Spot Welding: State of Practice, State of the Art, and Prospects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors, please find enclosed the comments and suggestions.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer, thank you for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript. The authors have gone through the comments one by one and introduce the appropriate changes across the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The reviewed article concerns interesting issues of assessing the quality of the resistance spot welding process.
However, it mainly lacks the results of the proposed actions. In its current form, the article is an introduction to the considerations, but without any demonstration that the proposed tools/actions will work, it is only an overview, and the reader is left with lack of knowledge in this area.
Moreover, the authors did not avoid errors:
- The abstract should briefly and concisely describe what the topic of the work is and what conclusions/effects the authors reached - in this situation, I suggest rewording,
- in the first sentence in the Introduction, the way of quoting when mentioning individual welding methods is, in my opinion, not correct,
- do the problems mentioned in the second paragraph also occur with inverter power supply?
- if we use acronyms for the first time, we provide their full meaning - example on page 2: SoA, AI, CPS, and IoTs
- at Figure 6 I am not sure that we can use the term "welding gun"
In my opinion, the presented work should be supplemented with the presentation of at least partial results of the proposed algorithms on a selected example. Then it will be significantly more attractive to the reader.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Editorial notes:
- in the first sentence in Introduction - [Error! Reference source not 26 found.]. The same in chapter 2.2.
- Chapter 2.2 - Microhardness should not be capitalized
- Page 8 - at the end of third paragraph - OK and NOK - NOK should be explained.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript. The authors took the opportunity to make changes and update the manuscript based on your comments. The changes and additions are made in red in the original text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This study analyzed the current state of practice and state of the art on quality assurance in resistance spot welding. The content of this review is relatively comprehensive, while some problems need to be polished.
1. The reference format error in line 26, 99, 423 should be avoided.
2. The review should be illustrated to make it clear to the reader.
3. Fig. 1, the box background color of “Process control”, “Correction/Prevention”, “Postprocess” and so on is too light.
4. How to correspond the joint’s fusion zone’s features, the joint mechanical performance, and its failure to the most common KPIs used for RSW in Fig. 2? It is better to make each figure in 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 section. The same problem in Fig. 3
5. Line 150, the author said that “expulsion at the workpiece’s interface can potentially affect the mechanical quality of the joint”, how does the interface affect the mechanical quality? Please describe specifically.
6. Line 250-251, how does the case of producing joints with the desired geometrical features reflect the quality control? On the other hand, it is better to make a conclusion in the part of “Practices & norms in Manufacturing”.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English language is well.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time and effort to review our manuscript. The authors considered all the proposed comments to make the appropriate additions and changes to the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Author thanks to take in account my observations and sugestions.
just a note:
116 - "been correlated to the strength strength of the joint [17, 18]. 116
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
All my comments included in the first review have been commented and/or corrected, so I have no further comments. Thank You.
