After-Machining Surface Layer of Composite Coatings Obtained by Thermal Spraying

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Major revisions should be considered by authors as following:

-          This is only as an observation. At first glance the title seems incomplete. Authors should consider including “conventional spraying method” or other additional information;

-          The abstract section is not properly written since it should contain mainly the findings reported in the paper, in other words a concise summary of the conducted research. Here, authors treat the abstract section as an introduction. Please revise, introduce studied configurations/coatings Ni-Al alloy and Ni-Al-Al2O3 etc. Also, most important is that authors should avoid any similarities to previous work (doi:10.20944/preprints201911.0374.v1 and Journal of KONES Powertrain and Transport, Vol. 20, No. 2 2013 );

-           In the abstract section authors declare: “…. matrix composite coatings have to be finishing due to the high roughness…”. Thus, I suggest a consistent English revision (grammar and vocabulary); Authors should try to avoid repetition of same connecting phrases: (i.e., among other things) or words in the same proposition: “types of machining are machining and abrasive machining; Only as a recommendation, authors should consider English editing service offered by the publisher.

-          “The paper proposes the use of finishing by plastic working and machining of nickel matrix composite coatings.” Please rephrase.

-          Authors should avoid using old references;

-          The introduction section should be revised, its structure is not well defined, thus hard to follow;

-          As imposed by the publisher and mentioned in the authors guidelines, authors should include the purity and composition of materials (example for C45) and the manufacturers city and country. This is also available for the applied commercially available instruments;

-          Authors declare: “Concentrations of non-metallic compound Al2O3 in the obtained coatings: 15% and 30 %.” What method was applied for determining the mentioned concentrations?

-          In spraying parameters, authors should avoid the use of “-“, and instead add “:” between the parameter and the actual used values;

-          How many measuring points were taken for the microhardness measurements?

-          In the results section authors should consider removing the entire first paragraph since it is not adding new information, all details and motivation were already mentioned in the introduction section;

-          Figure 1- 3 should be referenced, since there were previously published (rotating and changing the colors will not eliminate the obvious pattern); Table 1 is also available; What is the novelty of the section 3.1 or in section 3.2? Please discuss.

-          Figure 5 should present figures with equal magnification;

-          Please increase the contrast in figure 4, and reduce the scalebar lenght; The figure should be viewable in monochrome mode, so consider adding greyscale colors; Add reference to this figure [Starosta, R.; Charchalis, A.; Dyl, T. The choice of thermal spray technology and burnishing in terms of improving the exploitation properties of centrifugal pump shafts. The report of the research project N504 303537. Gdynia, Poland, 2012]. Same observations are available for figure 11.

-          Table 2 was already presented in previous work;

-          In conclusion, authors should state what was the novelty of the current work, comparisons with older results already published by the authors, etc.

    I will reconsider my decision only if  authors will successfully implement my observations.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank you for Your insightful comments.

Thank you for your very accurate observations. We appreciate your insightful review. We have revised the manuscript. The revised version has been uploaded to the system.

   Detailed responses to the Honorable Reviewer's comments have been included in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. It is difficult to read and interpret the text as it is written in very poor English.

2. The introduction needs to be rewritten. The contribution of each of the bibliographical references indicated in this research should be explained.

3. To clarify the paragraph 3.1, a table should be introduce.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for his comments. They will help the article to be better. The attached file contains replies to comments.
The revised manuscript Authors have uploaded to the system.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have completed interesting work and result. In addition, I recommend the publication of this manuscript after addressing the following concerns.

1.       To be more intuitive, the rulers in Figure 5 should be unified.

2.     The authors say that“One of the coating materials increasing the durability of machine parts is nickel and its alloys as well as a composite based on nickel and ceramic phase.” Illustrate ceramic and metal composites, related studies such as: Carbon 191 (2022) 290-300; Journal of Materials Processing Technology 300 (2022) 117419.

3.     The opencircuit potential and corrosion current should better be clarified in Figure 8. Related analysis (Corrosion Science, (2022) 200 110231, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2022.110231) could be helpful.

4.     The abstract and conclusion can be sharpened. Superfluous details could be abbreviated.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank you for Your insightful comments.

Thank you for your very accurate observations. We appreciate your insightful review. We have revised the manuscript. The revised version has been uploaded to the system.

   Detailed responses to the Honorable Reviewer's comments have been included in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1、Please carefully check the grammar of the papper, such as Line 14-Line 15: “Composite coatings have to the high roughness of the surface layer after application”
“In the article present the possibility of using plastic working and finishing to create the required roughness of the surface layer of the coating”

2、It is suggested that the main results and innovations of the paper, as well as the more relevant contents should be introduced in the abstract.

3、Most of the contents in "Conclusions and summary" should be discussed in the "Results"  part of the papper. It is hard to find the main conclusions  the anthor wants to express.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank you for Your insightful comments.

Thank you for your very accurate observations. We appreciate your insightful review. We have revised the manuscript. The revised version has been uploaded to the system.

Detailed responses to the Reviewer's comments have been included in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Lack of novel results presented in the revisez manuscript is still low and the majority of results were previously discussed in older papers. Do authors have the permission from publisher to reuse those results?

Taking all into consideration, my overall recommendation is to reject the manuscript in its current state.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the Reviewer for his comments.

The comparison of cutting to plastic working is a modern consideration contained in the article. In previous articles, there was rolling and pressing. This manuscript contains the results research of burnishing.

The attached file contains replies to comments.

The revised manuscript  have uploaded to the system.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The text requires corrections

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your thorough review of the article.
These comments contributed to the improvement of the quality of the manuscript.

Thank you once again for your opinion.
I attached the revised manuscript to the susy system.

Kind regards,

Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

This version is much better than the previous one, especially in grammar and figs. If figure 1 can be improved further, that will be more conducive to attracting readers' attention and understanding the content of this article. This version is acceptable.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your review of the article.
These comments contributed to the improvement of the quality of the manuscript.

I attached the revised manuscript to the susy system.

Kind regards,

Authors

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The proposed manuscript "After-machining the Surface Layer of Composite Coatings by Thermal Spraying" received extensive editing and the overall dissemination and presentation of the results has improved comparing with previous forms.

The conclusion section is well described and abstract is comprehensive enough to provide sufficient information and raise readers interest regarding the applied thermal spraying method and the outcomes of the proposed experiments.

Materials and methods sections are sufficiently referenced and described taking into consideration the editor template. Only as an observation, Table 1 should be introduced in this section.

In results section, measurements were sufficiently described, the conclusions were concise and the main findings were highlighted.

I propose the acceptance of the manuscript in the current form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your thorough review of the article.
These comments contributed to the improvement of the quality of the manuscript.

Thank you once again for your opinion.
I attached the revised manuscript to the susy system.

Kind regards,

Authors