Influence of Milling Conditions on Al_xCoCrFeNiMo_y Multi-Principal-Element Alloys

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Presentation style MUST be improved.

e.g., Avoid abbreviations in abstracts, conclusions, fig/table captions.

a figure title would look like this,

Temperature, T, (K) or Temperature, T, (oC); if authors would like to have a nomenclature/parameter to indicate the temperature variable (T) otherwise, Temperature (K) or Temperature (oC).

Avoid colloquial jargon. e.g, So far,.... ; do not begin a sentence or paragraph with conjoining words.

Proofreading; e.g, Fig1 caption, EBS images of the microstructure EBS images of the microstructure....

hardness test results on the image will not make sense if the indentation mark is not on the image; it depends on the region where hard or soft particles are, and what is below the surface. Some clarification/explanations are required.

Figure 2; EDS mapping is very complex and will not give any valuable information; suggest removing the figure; authors may wish to deepen their understanding of it; depends on surface quality, calibration, etc. a good scientist will use the EDS mapping as a reference but not as evidence. If preferred it would be in the appendix. Please refer to the attenuation of electrons within materials, sharp particles, wavy surfaces, etc. to deepen the understanding of EDS mapping.

The quality of the SCIENTIFIC presentation will impress the readers and hence citations.

Avoid redundant text.

A good study but the presentation MUST be improved; needs to be clearly and concisely written/revised.

May be considered for publication.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have performed milling study on AlxCoCrFeNiMoy Multi Principal Element Alloys. Fundamentally the authors did not do page proofing before submission. The manuscript has lot of basic errors which was difficult to follow for reviewing. Figure 2 is repeated three times in the manuscript. The callout of the figures have a problem (Error! Reference source not found). 30% of the proposed work is already published (10.1016/j.procir.2022.05.203). It is just a repetition. Restructure the entire manuscript by comparing Al0.3CoCrFeNi and Al0.3CoCrFeNiMo0.2. Also do not repeat any figures/tables from the published article. Submit as a new article to evaluate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Suggestions for improving the manuscript are as follows:

1. In several places in the manuscript, the following text appears “Error! Reference source not found". Please solve the problem.

2. The abstract should be corrected. The following should be emphasized in the abstract: objective, idea, methods, results, significant findings, conclusions.

3. At the end of the Introduction section, authors should write a paragraph that is essential to any research. In that paragraph, the following should be highlighted: general shortcomings of previous research, goals of this research, innovation of the research, scientific contribution of the research and scientific hypothesis.

4. In section 2. Materials and Methods, the authors state what they selected. However, nowhere do they state the reasons for the selection. For example: Why is the diameter 6 mm? Why is the relief angle of 15°? Why is the helix angle of 30°? Why is the rake angle of 4°? Why ultrasonic oscillation is approximately 3 µm? etc. etc.

5. “The data acquired is smoothed and any possible offset in the measurements is subtracted.” Why is smoothing necessary?

6. Total force components are not listed in the text (Ff, FfN, Fp).

7. The results of the full design of experiments could be presented in a table.

8. It would be good to analyse and discuss errors. In addition, authors should estimate the measurement uncertainty.

9. In the Conclusions section, state the limitations of your research and future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear author(s), please find below suggestions that may justify my final evaluation of the reviewed manuscript ‘Influence of milling conditions on AlxCoCrFeNiMoy Multi-Principal Element Alloys, Manuscript ID: coatings-2177098.

Generally, the paper idea is interesting, the topic is up-to-date and, but the contribution to the field is not significant.

 

1.     Remove all typo mistakes see lines. 20-22, cutting speed (vc),

2.     The introduction section needs incorporation of work published on ultrasonic-assisted machining processes in recent years only one publication is reported from 2022.( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2021.07.004, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14216572 and many more even your own work (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2022.05.203).

3.      In Figure 1, Label the grains.

4.     How the calibration of pyrometer was achieved, this information is missing in the article.

5.     Figure five shows the experimental data of maximum and minimum tested parameters, it would be better to put the medium tested conditions in these figures as well with STD.

6.     The emissivity of a pyrometer is not discussed in the submitted article.

7.     What causes the lower temperature in CoCrFeNi and Al0.3CoCrFeNi, Justification is needed.

8.     How the temperature in UAM is reduced needs justification.

 

9.     Figure 6 is also lacking the midrange tested parameter results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

No comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been corrected.