A Review on Topology Optimization Strategies for Additively Manufactured Continuous Fiber-Reinforced Composite Structures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is well written. The reviewer would like to make some suggestions.
1. In discussions, the author must name all the classes.
2. The results must be precise. It seems that the discussion cannot be differentiated from conclusion. The authors must present only the findings and make their opinion according to the findings. The conclusion can be written in bullet points
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The current manuscript presents a review on topology optimization strategies for additively manufactured continuous fiber-reinforced composite structure. The title is attractive and presenting detailed information. However, there are some issues to be considered as follows:
- The introduction section should include a critical review for the additively manufactured continuous fiber-reinforced composite structures according to the recent studies; including applied AM techniques, materials, characteristics, and limitations for fabrications.
- The subsection numbering needs to be revised.
- Some titles of sections and subsections should be adjusted such as section 3.
- It is recommended to present an applied example for each parameterization strategy from the literature.
- The conclusion section should be focused, using a bullet points style is recommended.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Remarks in comments for Editors.
I agree to show them to the Authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript may be accepted for publication as the authors have addressed all the review comments
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
the revised manuscript is improved, most of the comments and recommendations are well addressed. However, there are some issues still need to be considered as follows:
- The manuscript text should be carefully check to avoid data redundancy.
- The conclusion section should be focused and conceived. Some data and recommendations should be moved to the discussion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Editor, Dear Authors,
I read the paper again and the reviews.
I still have little doubt that Applied Sciences is the best journal for this paper. But the article is generally good, so I support editing it without further corrections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
