Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, the authors use a photoelastic stress compensation method for measurement verification along with fuzzy theory to reorganize a set of processes that can be used to evaluate the residual stress of a product, whereby the use of corresponding theoretical formula can effectively quantify and measure the residual stress of the product. The method for determining the residual stress is the core theme of this research, and the authors summarize a review of the issues arising from the case studies and models of learning applicable to these. However, there are some problems regarding the usefulness of the paper. Some suggestions for improving the paper are given below.

1. Basically, the research topic of this study is worthy to investigate the main influence factors between fuzzy theory and parameter optimization recognizable distribution. In addition, the proposed ideas seem to be innovative which directly increases the contribution of the paper.
2. The introduction is well organized and clearly written. The author can further explain the relevance and necessity between fuzzy theory and the problem to be solved, making it easier for readers to grasp the key points.
3. In the literature review part, the authors sorted out past research by year and explained the key points of each research. However, the authors simply put forward the conclusions and controversies of previous studies, which are too fragmentary. It is difficult for readers to understand the connection between previous studies. In the last paragraph, summarizing past research seems too abrupt. The suggestion can have a sub-summary in different decades, so as to fully understand the development process of this issue.
4. The description of Figures 1, 4, 5 is not very clear so that readers with different levels of understanding of the industry can better understand what the problem is to be solved.
5. The research method is rigorous and the data is clearly presented. But for the format, authors can consider consistency, such as the number of decimal places.
6. The discussion part is shorter, the authors should describe the benefits of the industry substance should be discussed appropriately to enhance the practicality of this paper.
7. It is suggested that authors can explain research limitations or suggest future research development.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

I would like to high appreciate to reviewer, because who give me a lot useful suggestions regarding processing operations field, therefore please let me say thank you again.

Kind Regards,

Han-Jui Chang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks to the authors for submitting their paper that presents an interesting argument but I think that, despite it contains useful observations, it does not seem a full study.

Firstly, I suggest to clarify the title:

Instead of “Using Recognizable Fuzzy Analysis to Evaluate the Non-Destructive Residual Stress Detection of White Light Elements”

You may use:

“Using Recognizable Fuzzy Analysis for Non-Destructive Evaluation of the Residual Stress in White Light Elements”

“Using Recognizable Fuzzy Analysis for Non-Destructive detection of Residual Stress in White Light Elements”

Then, I think that the abstract need to be revised about structure and language to evidence better the research ideas and then findings. It is too long and not focused.

Lines 58-60 I don’t agree with authors. The process parameters setting in injection molding depends from many factors, as they report, but not always the high values are the best.

Since this is not a review article, the section for literature review is too long and it needs to be reorganized generalizing the results; at present, it seems more or less a list of papers.

The case study, that should be the core of the paper, needs more detailed description. The study, as it is, does not conform to recognized procedures or methodology that can be repeated.

The results are not clearly presented.

The English must be revised.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

I would like to high appreciate to reviewer, because who give me a lot useful suggestions regarding processing operations field, therefore please let me say thank you again.

Kind Regards,

Han-Jui Chang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In "literature review" section, I suggest to avoid all the authors' name when they are more than two. For a better readability it is better to use the notation First Author Surname et al.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

I wanna delivering high appreciate to reviewer, who figure out very useful opinions regarding my processing article, hereby let me say thank you again.

Kind Regards,
Han-Jui Chang

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf