Design and Characterization of Nanostructured Titanium Monoxide Films Decorated with Polyaniline Species
, Simonas Ramanavicius 1,*, Arnas Naujokaitis 2, Gediminas Niaura 3 and Arunas Jagminas 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the enclosed file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer’s time and effort in providing valuable feedback and insightful comments on this manuscript. The changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Here we provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns in a PDF file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript title: Design and Characterization of Nanostructured Titanium Monoxide Films Decorated with Polyaniline Species
Manuscript id: coatings-1972267
Authors: Sabirovas et al.
The manuscript is particularly strong regarding the less studied topic and the experimental setup on nanostructured titanium monoxide films. The manuscript regarding the topic and results presented is of interest to the material science community and revisions based on the comments below are recommended before considering for publication.
Major comments
The unit/abbreviation is not mentioned before, consider defining the abbreviation when mentioned for the first time…. Please check throughout the manuscript to define the abbreviations.
The reference numbers are mixed, consider arranging them in order….
Line 52-62, the aim or hypothesis of the study is clear, however, the approach is missing ….
Lake of scientific literature to support the statements and findings throughout the manuscript…... I have made some suggestions for that and more need it….
More information is needed for all figure captions and define the abbreviation and units that are used.
I have a major concern about the results and discussion section. The authors describe the results and compare the results with previous studies, however, insight mechanisms are still insufficient.
Detailed comments:
Abstract
Introduction:
Line 36: A reference is needed here, for example: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dyepig.2019.04.002
Or
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-005-0854-x
Line 42-44: A reference is needed here, for example: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.04.118
These are rather long sentences, better to break them down into more sentences.
Line 59-62: A complicated sentence, please revise and check the grammar
In MM section
Literature references are missing for all sub-section. It would be better to cite the references that the procedure adopted.
In MM section, what is the quality control (QC) data? There is no mention of the QC.
In general, how many times you’ve recorded the data,? duplicate? Triplicate?..... what you mentioned in line 109 is not clear, please elaborate more on this
R&D section
Line 107-109: delete this sentence! it does not belong to the RD section.
These sections are repeating information already presented and explain things in an unnecessarily complicated way. The quality of the manuscript would benefit from the whole section being condensed, Line 120-132, Line 186-212
Conclusion
Important conclusions! However, the future perspectives for the following research are highly crucial here …..
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer’s time and effort in providing valuable feedback and insightful comments on this manuscript. The changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Here we provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns in a PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is generally good. The needed revisions are
1. The authors should revise it to indicate the most important information based on the present findings and also complete the abstract with possible applications
2. The introduction should be dedicated to present a critical analysis of state-of-the-art related work to justify the objective of the study. In this case, overall, the introduction section is too simple, without a comprehensive description.
3. The authors should highlight the significance/novelty of their work.
4. Kind suggestions, clearly demonstrate the aims or objectives of this work.
5. The authors should explain which exact problem could be solved by the present research.
6. To strengthen the discussion and justify the results, authors are suggested to go through some recent and very important reference papers and must include them in the revised manuscript.
7. Please discuss further the fact that the method is not entirely successful, identifying the origin of the problem and suggesting further improvements as potential future work.
8. The conclusion should be more concise and informative.
9. Social implications shall be highlighted in the conclusion
10. English is suggested to be polished by a native speaker to a publishable level.
11. It is suggested the authors check their manuscript carefully and thoroughly to avoid some typical mistakes and mistypes
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer’s time and effort in providing valuable feedback and insightful comments on this manuscript. The changes are highlighted within the manuscript. Here we provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns in a PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors!
The revised manuscript has improved compared to the original version. The authors tried to address my questions as much as possible. I recommend the manuscript to be published!
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors addressed each comment in detail and made appropriate changes. I recommend its publication in the present form.
