Effect of Nanodiamond Content in the Plating Solution on the Corrosion Resistance of Nickel–Nanodiamond Composite Coatings Prepared on Annealed 45 Carbon Steel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The following points to be considered before accepting the manuscript for publication.

1.      The title of the manuscript is too large and confusing. The authors need to revise the title and provide a clear cut, concise, and crisp title that provide a clear visual image of the whole work.

2.      Most of the statements provided in the manuscript are confusing and so the authors are required to do the proofreading to avoid English grammatical mistake, also create some interest to the readers.

3.      The statement in the abstract, “On this basis, the influence law of nanodiamond content in the plating solution on the performance of the composite coating was analyzed by analyzing the surface morphology, corrosion resistance, surface roughness and friction properties of the composite coating” is totally confusing. Can the authors revise this ? Likewise, many other statements are confusing.

4.      The abstract is discussing the narrow points, rather than the broader and concise view of the manuscript and its work. Please check and revise the abstract.

5.      The Introduction section is too elementary, indefinite, and vague; the authors need to revise this part as well.

6.      In the Results section, the authors did not perform the Thermal stability of nickel-nanodiamong composite. The changes in composition and associated thermal stability changes may provide a better understanding of the composite coatings.

7.      Understanding of the oxidation state of the elements like Fe and Ni in the composite can help better to analyze the corrosion resistance behavior. Can the authors check whether they can add any results in this direction?

8.      High resolution transmission electron microscopy images of the coated composite with varying percentages help to understand the mechanical changes. Therefore, morphological and size of particles by microscopy are highly desirable.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing our paper. We have carefully read your comments on our work and found them to be useful in improving the quality of our papers. We have revised the paper as required. The answers to your comments are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper deals with the ¨ Effect of nanodiamond particle content in the plating solution on the properties of composite coatings electrodeposited on annealed treated 45# carbon steel¨. The manuscript topic is interesting but needs major revision:

1- The writing of English needs major revision.

2- Some abbreviations used in the manuscript that not defined full name before. And some words are meaningless like ¨ In this thesis, the effect of …¨. This is a research paper and it is not a Thesis. Please recheck all manuscripts from this point of view.

3- The introduction needs to be improved. The benefits and drawbacks of this manuscript are not clear. The authors aimed for what they wanted to present, but the problem that the authors want to solve.

4- The paper style should be according to the journal format.

5- Quality of figures are low. Please replace the figures with high resolution ones.

6- It is suggested to add real samples picture in Fig. 1.

7- Figures 2 and 3 are not necessary. It is suggested to remove them.

8- Please add more data about the ¨nanodiamond particles¨ in the experimental section. Please replace the data in Figure 5 in the experimental section, because it is your raw (test) material. Also, please add EDS, XRD or any chemical characterization results from nanodiamond particles in the experimental section.

 

9- The authors stated many results, but the discussion about the results needs to improved. In this case, the paper just presented the experimental output and needs more scientific discussions.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing our paper. We have carefully read your comments on our work and found them to be useful in improving the quality of our papers. We have revised the paper as required. The answers to your comments are attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I see that significant changes were made to the manuscript. Also, all the comments were answered satisfactorily, I therefore, accept this manuscript for publication. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors address comments properly.