Roughness Evaluation of Burnished Topography with a Precise Definition of the S-L Surface

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper aims to provide guidance on how to provide accurate S-L surface roughness parameters and false estimation of parameters. Overall, the article is interesting, however, sometimes is hard to read. Some suggestions are proposed to improve its quality and text flow.

1) Introduction

Line 32 – 34

Line 40

Line 41 – 42

Line 68 - 71

These statements are not clear. There are spelling and grammar errors. Please revise.

The last paragraph should clearly identify the research gap which this paper will address.

Materials and Methods:

Line 140

Is there any particular reason why 20% was selected?

Line 169 – reference missing

Section 2.3 is quite difficult to read. Many methods are introduced, and the text jump from one to another. Can the author include a Table or a schematic to highlight which methods were used?

Line 245

Can the author elaborate on why?

Results

Line 400 - spelling

Conclusion:

Please revise statement 1, spelling.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please find in tha attached file, I hope, all of the suitable responses to the comments raised.

Best regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has some reference value for readers. The revision suggestions are as follows:

1. S-L is the abbreviation form,should give the full name first,then give the abbreviation form, including the title, abstract and manuscript. Please chect the other abbreviation words for the whole paper.

2. Previous studies were referred severial times in the paper, and the references should be given.

3. The middle part of Fig. 5 is missing part and needs to be completed.

4. The description of the applied methods can be simpler.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please find in tha attached file, I hope, all of the suitable responses to the comments raised.

Best regards,

Author

Author Response File: Author Response.docx