Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments on coatings-2164889

The manuscript is not well-prepared. An in-depth technical review is impossible to perform in the current situation. I list a few typical flaws below for the authors to consider if they have the chance to revise their manuscript.

1.     The manuscript is difficult to read because it has too many grammatical errors and typos.

2.     The conventions of using abbreviations are different for the abstract and main text. I suggest the authors consult any writers’ manual for the details if there are no guidelines available in the author's instructions of Coatings.

3.     The units shown in figures 11 and 12 should be retyped. The graphic software seems to have problems displaying special characters. Besides, the axis title of both figures should be consistent in format.

4.     Some nomenclatures are incorrect, for example, thermal analysis is not TGA; WDXRF or WDX should stand for wavelength dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy.

5.     The significant digits and symbols shown on lines 229 and 230 are confusing and inconsistent. 

6.     The references are pretty much messed up, both in the content and format.   

7.     The styles of the figures and tables captions lack consistency and don’t adhere to the standard format. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the submitted suggestions, that help improving the paper’s quality.

Please find below our answers at your requests.

 

Comments on coatings-2164889

The manuscript is not well-prepared. An in-depth technical review is impossible to perform in the current situation. I list a few typical flaws below for the authors to consider if they have the chance to revise their manuscript.

1. The manuscript is difficult to read because it has too many grammatical errors and typos.

Answer: We checked again the entire paper by a native english speaker.

2. The conventions of using abbreviations are different for the abstract and main text. I suggest the authors consult any writers’ manual for the details if there are no guidelines available in the author's instructions of Coatings.

Answer: Revised and changed

 

3. The units shown in figures 11 and 12 should be retyped. The graphic software seems to have problems displaying special characters. Besides, the axis title of both figures should be consistent in format.

Answer: Corrected

 

4. Some nomenclatures are incorrect, for example, thermal analysis is not TGA; WDXRF or WDX should stand for wavelength dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectroscopy.

Answer: Corrected

 

5. The significant digits and symbols shown on lines 229 and 230 are confusing and inconsistent. 

Answer: Corrected

 

6. The references are pretty much messed up, both in the content and format.   

Answer: Reorganized and replaced where was the case

 

7. The styles of the figures and tables captions lack consistency and don’t adhere to the standard format. 

Answer: We checked the journal template and author instructions and we corrected them accordingly.

Kind regards

Prof. R.M.Ion

 

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The present investigation shows the results of archaeometry pottery samples' chemical and mineralogical composition, along with porosity and microstructure. A lot of instrumental analysis is employed to mainly show the composition and texture of the examined materials. However, the work is not well structured, and the discussion is lacking on the core understanding of the materials. The comments to improve the quality of the discussion and the paper structure follow.

-        The abstract is somewhat clumsy, full of information, and insufficiently clear. It is necessary to write it more practically and show the essence of the research and the main findings.

-        The introduction section should at first reflect the historical frame of the tested pottery while claiming the century in which those are produced. Then, the story should explain the similar papers published on the subject, at the conclusion section of the Introduction should briefly explain the purpose of this work and the main conclusions, without listing the instruments used.

-        The calling for a table and figure must be placed before the same. Discussion should explain what is shown in the results or similar. The figures should be presented as such, and not in the form of a table (Table 1).

-        The authors are strongly advised to choose whether the materials contained a lot or some carbonates. Were those maybe hydroxide forms? If the content of Ca is below 3.6 %, is it an increased content of Ca? Why was not the usual presentation of Ca as CaO mentioned? How do all these comments along with lines 305-307? (“Usually, the presence of calcite is an indicator of the low burning temperature, or in our case, calcium is only found in a few samples and in very low concentrations, as we have shown above.”).

-        XRD, FTIR and Raman spectra diagrams could be better shown to reflect which peak/band is associated with which mineral. In such a case, Table 3 will not be needed.

-        XRD analysis is not properly done. Berlinite cannot possibly be one of the main phases in the material, given the mostly low P2O5 content detected by XRD. Anorthite and albite are not clay minerals. You must pay attention to that. How were XRD analyses done, and in which way are the peaks detected assigned to minerals?

-        Table 2, please choose between and LOD.

-        Figure 4 is never explained nor mentioned in the text. What does it show, and why is it presented here? However, it does not show the ratio of Fe2O3 to CaO, as written.

-        SEM images should contain a visible size of the sections. The experimental section claimed SEM with EDS is used, and there are no results on elemental compositions.

-        The text considering color and TGA is overlapped with no reason… Figure 7 is never mentioned in the text as such.

-        The fonts and their size should be the same in all the images.

-        Why do you think the FTIR bands at about 1000 cm-1 are so wide? Please, consult the literature, such as 10.1016/j.clay.2022.106410.

Author Response

The present investigation shows the results of archaeometry pottery samples' chemical and mineralogical composition, along with porosity and microstructure. A lot of instrumental analysis is employed to mainly show the composition and texture of the examined materials. However, the work is not well structured, and the discussion is lacking on the core understanding of the materials. The comments to improve the quality of the discussion and the paper structure follow.

-        The abstract is somewhat clumsy, full of information, and insufficiently clear. It is necessary to write it more practically and show the essence of the research and the main findings.

Answer: The abstract was reformulated.

-        The introduction section should at first reflect the historical frame of the tested pottery while claiming the century in which those are produced. Then, the story should explain the similar papers published on the subject, at the conclusion section of the Introduction should briefly explain the purpose of this work and the main conclusions, without listing the instruments used.

Answer: The introduction section was reformulated.

-        The calling for a table and figure must be placed before the same. Discussion should explain what is shown in the results or similar. The figures should be presented as such, and not in the form of a table (Table 1).

Answer: The figures and tables citations were checked. Presenting those results for each sample would be too hard to follow and understand.

-        The authors are strongly advised to choose whether the materials contained a lot or some carbonates. Were those maybe hydroxide forms? If the content of Ca is below 3.6 %, is it an increased content of Ca? Why was not the usual presentation of Ca as CaO mentioned? How do all these comments along with lines 305-307? (“Usually, the presence of calcite is an indicator of the low burning temperature, or in our case, calcium is only found in a few samples and in very low concentrations, as we have shown above.”).

Answer: We included an expanatory paragraph in the text, explaining the role of calcite well correlated with thermal analysis, present in the paper.

-        XRD, FTIR and Raman spectra diagrams could be better shown to reflect which peak/band is associated with which mineral. In such a case, Table 3 will not be needed.

Answer: Done

-        XRD analysis is not properly done. Berlinite cannot possibly be one of the main phases in the material, given the mostly low P2O5 content detected by XRD. Anorthite and albite are not clay minerals. You must pay attention to that. How were XRD analyses done, and in which way are the peaks detected assigned to minerals?

Answer: We re-evaluated the berlinite not as the main phases in the material. We built a graphic with the the main component of such materials.

-        Table 2, please choose between and LOD.

Answer: Done. We kept only mass% ± S.D.%, normalized to 100%.

-        Figure 4 is never explained nor mentioned in the text. What does it show, and why is it presented here? However, it does not show the ratio of Fe2O3 to CaO, as written.

Answer: The figure was deleted.

 

-        SEM images should contain a visible size of the sections. The experimental section claimed SEM with EDS is used, and there are no results on elemental compositions.

Answer: The SEM images were replaced.

-        The text considering color and TGA is overlapped with no reason… Figure 7 is never mentioned in the text as such.

Answer: Figure 7 was cited in the text and all the figures were rearranged.

-        The fonts and their size should be the same in all the images.

Answer: The figures were modified.

-        Why do you think the FTIR bands at about 1000 cm-1 are so wide? Please, consult the literature, such as 10.1016/j.clay.2022.106410.

Answer: We studied the suggested paper and we adapted accordingly in our paper. Also, we cited this paper.

 

Kind regards

Prof. R.M.Ion

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper "Archaeometric Investigations of the Chalcolitic Pottery from Topolița—Neamț County, Romania" is interesting and may be considered for publication in this journal, after corrections below:

 

a) The abstract, despite being properly structured, needs more information on quantitative results;

b) Still in the abstract, there are many acronyms that should be avoided, acronyms should only be placed throughout the text, after the first complete presentation. The size is also long from the abstract;

c) The title can be more objective for readers, paying attention to the fact that it should really reflect the objectives of the research;

d) Figure 1 is composite, so the authors must properly name each one and in their caption;

e) The chemical formula of Figure 4 must be corrected with its subscripts;

f) The theoretical framework is limited, the authors should dedicate themselves to improving some of the presented approaches, adding more current research, such as: 10.1016/j.jobe.2018.05.026; 10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00805; 10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01072.

g) "The application of the BJH method of determining the size of the mesopors to the 330 desorption branch provides a wide distribution of the size of the pores. From the BJH 331 desorption diagrams of the samples, presented in Figures 8 and 9, a series of pores with 332 dimensions between 2-5 nm is noted.The differential tip is present at a pore diameter of 333 about 4 nm, which means that the majority diameter of the mesopors is 4 nm.The ceramic 334 body has all the porosity parameters half as value by comparison with white incrustation, 335 this being a proof of its stability, due to the metallic phosphate present in the composition, 336 Table 4" The authors should better explain this part of the paper, based on other scientific research.

Author Response

The paper "Archaeometric Investigations of the Chalcolitic Pottery from Topolița—Neamț County, Romania" is interesting and may be considered for publication in this journal, after corrections below:

 

1. The abstract, despite being properly structured, needs more information on quantitative results;

Answer: The abstract was reformulated.

1. b) Still in the abstract, there are many acronyms that should be avoided, acronyms should only be placed throughout the text, after the first complete presentation. The size is also long from the abstract;

Answer: Solved

1. c) The title can be more objective for readers, paying attention to the fact that it should really reflect the objectives of the research;

Answer: After consultation with the authors team, we suggest to keep the actual title, because it better reflect the subsject ans paper objectives.

1. d) Figure 1 is composite, so the authors must properly name each one and in their caption;

Answer: We changed the caption and make it more focused on the significance

1. e) The chemical formula of Figure 4 must be corrected with its subscripts;

Answer: Solved

10. f) The theoretical framework is limited, the authors should dedicate themselves to improving some of the presented approaches, adding more current research, such as: 10.1016/j.jobe.2018.05.026; 10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00805; 10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01072.

Answer: the suggested papers have ben downloaded and some data have been inserted in our paper

1. g) "The application of the BJH method of determining the size of the mesopors to the 330 desorption branch provides a wide distribution of the size of the pores. From the BJH 331 desorption diagrams of the samples, presented in Figures 8 and 9, a series of pores with 332 dimensions between 2-5 nm is noted.The differential tip is present at a pore diameter of 333 about 4 nm, which means that the majority diameter of the mesopors is 4 nm.The ceramic 334 body has all the porosity parameters half as value by comparison with white incrustation, 335 this being a proof of its stability, due to the metallic phosphate present in the composition, 336 Table 4" The authors should better explain this part of the paper, based on other scientific research.

Answer: Details were added.

Kind regards

Prof. R.M.Ion

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments on Coatings-2164889-v2

Although some basic grammatical issues and the format inconsistency in references remain, the manuscript is fine to publish in Coatings, as the English editing of MDPI is supposed to deal with those problems.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is improved and can be published. Not all the references are cited as mentioned. Also, SEM images size is not enlarged meaning that the font of the numbers showing the size of particles is hardly visible.

Reviewer 3 Report

Ok