Fatigue Properties of Aluminum Alloy Sheet Treated with Shot-Peen Forming in Salt-Spray Environment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is a good attempt; however, the following is suggested to improve the quality of the paper.
1. Abstract - provide some numerical values as properties. It looks general.
2. The introduction part includes a short story until it comes to the main objective of this paper. I think it should be written with more details to make it clear and exact.
3. Also, in the ‘Introduction’ the reason why authors are dealing with the subject and what kind of scientific problem they are going to solve are not given.
4. In this paper, the results section should be analyzed in more detail.
5. Authors are advised to draw comparisons with previous literature to justify the results.
6. Conclusions - Important new results and knowledge along with their potential use should be listed. Being as quantitative as possible. Do not just summarize what work was conducted in the manuscript.
7. A few references need to be updated with some recent papers published in the last years.
8. The manuscript is overall well-written. However, there are many typesetting and grammatical errors in the text that should be corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript studies fatigue properties of Al alloy sheet treated by shot peen forming in salt spray environment. While the manuscript has some interesting points, there are serious flaws and the following comments should be revised/improved before reconsidering that:
1- The language of the manuscript is very ambiguous and hardly can be understood. There are some expressions that are not commonly used, e.g. Fatigue source area, low-power fracture morphology. The manuscript should be edited by a native English speaker who is an expert in the field.
2- The discussion about the relation between residual stress and the corrosion behavior should be extended. In the current status, the discussion is not enough.
3- In the introduction, you did not explain about the effect of shot peening on the properties of aluminum and how it can be important/effective. Also, being in an aqueous environment will lead to the possibility of absorbing hydrogen. The authors should conclude all these effects from the references. The following reference is also very important and should be used in the introduction: https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrogen2030020
4- The effect of shot peening and the resultant work hardening on fatigue behavior should be clarified. While fatigue is related to the weak link phenomenon, and the local microstructure is important, how you can relate the effect of work hardening mechanism on low low-cycle and high-cycle fatigue behavior? Please use the relevant references and explain that in the introduction and discussion.
5- I am not sure about the designated region of fatigue final rupture while we cannot see enough evidence in the fracture surface for such deduction. Please explain that more using references.
6- About the effect of dislocations on fatigue behavior in air and in salt spray, more explanation is needed. What is the role of dislocations in absorption from the environment? Generally, the mechanisms of different corrosion behavior with shot peening was not explained satisfactorily.
7- Usually, the fatigue crack initiation is sensitive to the surface and the defects on that. from this viewpoint, how you can explain the behavior of the shot peened sample?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have done efforts to answer all the questions addressed by the reviewers and to a large extent have done it correctly.
Tha manuscript can now be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript reads well and seems better than the previous version. I recommend publication after revision in language.
