Microstructural and Morphological Characterization of the Cobalt-Nickel Thin Films Deposited by the Laser-Induced Thermionic Vacuum Arc Method
, Aurelia Mandes 1, Rodica Vladoiu 1,2, Gabriel Prodan 1, Victor Ciupina 1,2 and Silviu Polosan 3,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article presents the results of microstructural studies of thin Co-Ni intermetallic films produced by the new LTVA method.
Overall, I think the article is well written. It has the correct text structure. Introduction sufficiently describes the current state of knowledge and justifies undertaking the research topic. Materials and research methodology have been sufficiently described.
However, I believe that the article lacks a clear summary stating what structure the coatings produced actually have and what structural components have been identified. It is also not clear in the discussion what new the presented research results bring to the current state of knowledge. I think the article is interesting and the authors should emphasize this information a bit more.
Regarding the test results, I also have doubts about the SEM images in Fig.5a. What does this picture actually represent? Such a photo (you can't see anything on it, no structural components) adds nothing to the scientific value of the research. I think it would be better to show the layer on its cross-section. In addition, the EDX analysis is incomprehensible. It is not known in which areas on the surface the coating (points 1, 2 and 3) was made. The chemical composition is similar, so I suppose it was a random confirmation of similar chemical composition in different places. I believe that these research results do not bring much about the whole, because they only confirm the presence of those elements that seem obvious. It would be much more advantageous to reveal the structural components of the coating (whether on the surface or in the cross-section) and to show the differences in chemical composition. As long as it's even possible with such a layer thickness.
I also have reservations about References. Co-author R. Vladoiu's publications are cited 15 times. This is over 25% of self-citations. This is not a review article, so I think the self-citation rate is too high.
Other notes:
Lines: 47-50: There should be a reference to literature.
Fig.3: Descriptions should be clearer. Why put a graph in an image if you can put it next to the image. It will then be more readable.
Check the chapter numbering on line 229.
Line 231: Check if the correct Figure number is given (Figure 4 or Figure 5?)
Figure 5 and 8. The figure caption should have a general title followed by what a) and b) represent.
Check Figures numbers on lines 260 and 269.
Fig.6: The EDX spectrum should be more clearly described.
What does the phrase "intermetallic Co-Ni alloys" mean.
Author Response
See attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors studied the Microstructural and morphological characterization of the cobalt-nickel thin films deposited by the Laser-induced Thermionic Vacuum Arc method. However, some of the points need to be addressed to improve the quality of the pape.
1.Please include the nomenclature in the manuscript
2. Figure 5 (a), No clarity in the SEM micrographs, please add the new SEM image with 20 to 50 microns magnification
3. Figure 8 a) and b) detailed discussion is missing. Please include the the magnetic behaviors and compare each other
4. Explanation missing for the Fig. 9 and Fig.10, include the more details on it.
5. In most cases, the thin film resistivity (?f) is highly dependent on the film thickness. Justify it with technical reasons (If possible include the reference)
5. Typo errors:
(i) It should be T = 295-329 K instead of range T = 295÷329 K (Line no. 298 and 299)
Author Response
Thank you. See attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review Comments on “Microstructural and morphological characterization of the cobalt-nickel thin films deposited by the Laser-induced Thermionic Vacuum Arc method”
The author has done tremendous work. The author has covered all requirements of the manuscript very nicely. There are some suggestions which are given below:
11. The originality in Abstract is not well established.
22. The author's discussion of XRD analysis and about the substrate that thin films will be deposited on it in the abstract was insufficient.
33. The author left out a description of the XRD analysis in the introductory section.
44. The author did not justify all of the manuscript's figures.
55. The materials name that is to be deposited (Company or Synthesized or Bought) in lines 97–98 of the Materials and Method section was left out by the author.
66. On page 10, line 299, the author spelt the temperature range incorrectly.
77. The author failed to specify the coating thickness using SEM images.
88. The microstructural characterization was not sufficiently explained by the author. XRD, electrons, microscopies, and porosimetry are all used to characterise microstructural composition.
99. The author should analyse the pore size and test BET surface area for porosimetry.
110. The section numbers on page 7 (line 229), page 11 (line 316), page 12 (line 382), and the subsequent sub-sections were given incorrectly by the author.
111. The scale bar in image 5b was mistakenly not provided by the author.
Author Response
Thank you. See attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
