Ultra-High-Speed Magnetic Abrasive Surface Micro-Machining of AISI 304 Cylindrical Bar
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is original and present interesting information. Strong side of this paper is a research character and idea. ). However, there are a few points that need attention before it can be considered for publication:
1. Introduction: it is very observational in nature. All the previous work that has been commented here it should be critically assessed (as an expert in the field) so that the research gaps can be identified. This will offer more scientific "legacy" of the work reported here. For this purpose, please add a research paper: Structural and Microhardness Changes After Turning of the AISI 1045 Steel for Minimum Quantity Cooling Lubrication , Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance. 2017, Vol. 26, is. 1, pp. 431-438 and Parametric and nonparametric description of the surface topography in the dry and MQCL cutting conditions. Measurement. 2018, Vol. 121, pp. 225-239.
2. Cited references must be discussed individually and demonstrate their significance to work. Therefore, please avoid the following citations: "and cold-drawn techniques [1-12]:
3. All variables in the article, please write in italic style.
4. Results and discussions: here more in-depth phenomenological discussions. Currently, the discussions seem to be "punctual", i.e. limited only to the current results, but these need to be also open up as comments of wider academic meaning. Please try to address this.
5.Conclusions are somehow simplistic as they seems to be observational without revealing findings of generic academic value. What I mean that based on the results some generic and fundamental academic conclusions need to be drawn.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present experimental results pertaining to the Ultra-High-Speed Magnetic Abrasive Machining of steel. They have performed measurements on the roughness and microstructure of the specimen they machined and they conclude that the method presents high removal rate and surface finish. The paper could be interesting, however, the paper is superficial and requires considerable improvement.
First of all, the authors need to improve the language of the paper and proofread their manuscript; it is confusing whether the tool is rotated at 8K or 80K rpm, some sentences are repeated, there are grammatical errors etc.
In the introduction, the presentation of previous relevant works is poor. The authors mention papers in bulk, e.g. [1-12], without explaining what is important for the analysis presented here. The authors need to make a thorough review of the previous work and explain what is new presented in this paper.
The most important drawback of this paper is that it includes results for only one specimen. The authors need to elaborate more on this aspect of their paper.
The discussion of the results is poor. The authors try to describe what it can be seen on the graphs without any real explanation of the results. They make assumptions that are not backed-up by any references, provide the results without any theory and as a result, the conclusions are rather trivial.
Finally, the conclusions are not supported by the findings of this research and they should be rewritten.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper topic is interesting and paper can be published but only after the above suggestions:
Introduction should be rewrite. In present form is not acceptable. Introduction must provide a comprehensive critical review of recent developments in a specific area or theme that is within the scope of the journal (advanced manufacturing), not only a list of published studies or a bibliometric one. Introduction is expected to have an extensive literature review followed by an in-depth and critical analysis of the state of the art. If you avoided reference overkill/run-on, i.e. do not use more than 3 references per sentence. Most of Authors references are in first sentence: [1-12] - this is not serious state of the art. If you need to use more, make sure you state the key relevant idea of each reference. Each one of the cited references within the body of the paper should be discussed individually and explicitly to demonstrate their significance to the study. Also note that cited authors' surname should be used as the subject of a verb, and then state in one or two sentences what they claim, what evidence they provide to support their claim, and how the work is evaluated. References section should be extensive about information connecting with surface structure and cutting forces in machining. I suggest add information to better describe what other researchers have done in this area. I suggest add important and new articles from this field:
Measurement and analysis of cutting force and product surface quality during end-milling of thin-wall components (2018) Measurement, 121, pp. 190-204.
Study on metrological relations between instant tool displacements and surface roughness during precise ball end milling, Measurement, 129, pp. 686-694 (2018).
The discussion is shallow and needs more details, the observations and future trends. This chapter should be connected with others published papers.
Some of the bullet points on the conclusion are simplistic; Please try to emphasize your novelty, put some quantifications, and comment on the limitations. This is a very common way to write conclusions for a learned academic journal. The conclusions should highlight the novelty and advance in understanding presented in the work.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have improved their paper in style and language. However, there is no improvement regarding the scientific part of the paper.
Author Response
We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Paper is ready for publication
Author Response
Thank you so much.
