Next Article in Journal
Quaternary Evolution of Ischia: A Review of Volcanology and Geology
Previous Article in Journal
Improved Low-Depth SHA3 Quantum Circuit for Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computers
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Study on Interface Mechanical Properties of Graphene/Copper Matrix Composites

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(6), 3559; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13063559
by Dongbo Li *, Yongkun Liu and Qinlong Liu
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13(6), 3559; https://doi.org/10.3390/app13063559
Submission received: 19 February 2023 / Revised: 8 March 2023 / Accepted: 8 March 2023 / Published: 10 March 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article shows the study of interfacial force between graphene and copper during graphene pullout. The study emphasizes the effect of temperature on the interfacial force. However, there are a few things that should be addressed to improve the presentation such as

1. In section 2.3. method verification, it says that the author compared the model with the literature. However, there is no citation in this section. Please cite the literature that you use in this study.

2. Please explain more about the method validation data for graphene/copper composites.

3. Could you please explain the implication of this study for fracture toughness and crack propagation?

4. There are several unclear words such as sentences in section 3.4.2 "As can be seen from the above, graphene content only has a significant effect on the pull-out force, and has almost no effect on the pull-out force.". 

5. Extensive language editing might be needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the enclosed comment file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments

11.   Firstly, as a general opinion, please enlarge all the images and use thick lines and legends. With the current version, it is hard to read and understand. In some figures the units are also missing.

2 2. The authors should brief the study. The current study seems to be very large.

33. The authors should include more citations and scientific discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all of reviewers comments

 

Author Response

Thank you for the time and effort you put into my article. Best wishes.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript now looks impressive. Even though it will be good if more citations added. Also some images can be moved to supplementary information instead of the main manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop