Tailoring the Silicon Cementation Applied to P265GH Grade Steel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewed manuscript investigates tailoring the silicon cementation applied to P265GH grade steel. The research content is suitable for publication in Coatings. But there are some important issues need to be solved by the authors before publication:
1. The originality of this research should be identified clearly.
2. The language and writing style must be improved, as there are numerous grammatical errors and awkward phrasings throughout the paper.
3. The abstract needs to to be rewritten, and innovations and main reuslts need to be highlighted.
4. The introduction needs a lot of enhancement. I think it needs to be extended to illustrate the novelty and the importance of the work, as well as some previous related studies in published literatures.
5. Some data such microstructure images and the reletaed descriptions in Discussion section need to move to Results section to improve the readability and clarity of the manuscript.
6. The conclusion needs to be concise.
7. The format of the references is inconsistent. Please write in current format of the Journal.
8. Literatures are too old. Some related references need to be added from the last five years.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The language and writing style must be improved, as there are numerous grammatical errors and awkward phrasings throughout the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First, thank you for the patience and relevance with which you reviewed the paper. The observations/suggestions made are to the point and welcome, both for me and the magazine's level.
I carefully went through the observations made and the recommended suggestions, trying in the following to answer them. The changes have been outlined in yellow highlights. Also, the words/phrases I removed from the text are strikethrough.
I carefully went through the observations made and the recommended suggestions, trying in the following to answer them. The changes have been outlined in yellow highlights. Also, the words/phrases that I removed from the text are strikethrough.
Below are presented, in order the changes suggested by you.
- I rewritten the Abstract.
- I improved my language and writing style.
- I introduced in the Introduction the motivation of the research.
- I have completed the Conclusions with paragraph ”c)”.
- I wrote the references in the current format of the journal.
- I processed/improved the resolution of Figure 4 (lines 220 - 222).
Finally, I want to thank you once again for the time given and for the equidistance with which you analyzed the paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is technically sound and merit. However, the following issues are found.
The abstract section is not technical. I suggest to rewrite it in a technical way.
The introduction needs to extended with recent work.
The materials and methods section needs a schematic.
In Fig.7, can you provide the At %, and Wt %?
The results and discussion is well organized.
What is the motivation behind this work?
Explain the novelty as compared to literature.
The conclusions are to be rewritten.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageminor
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First, thank you for the patience and relevance with which you reviewed the paper. The observations/suggestions made are to the point and welcome, both for me and for the level of the journal.
I carefully went through the observations made and the recommended suggestions, trying in the following to answer you to them. The changes have been outlined in red highlight. Also, the words/phrases I removed from the text are strikethrough.
Below are presented, in order, the changes suggested by you.
- I reformulated the Abstract.
- I improved my English as much as I could.
- I have included some additional explanations in the "Introduction" chapter.
- I completed the "Materials and Methods" section, including with the sequence of operations.
- I have mentioned in all the manuscript where it is about wt%.
- The motivation of this paper is mentioned in the introduction (Lines: 74 - 82).
- I modified the conclusions.
Thanks for the recommendation made regarding the use of Mossbauer spectrometry for possible detection improvement.
Finally, I want to thank you once again for the time given and for the equidistance with which you analyzed the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments: Coatings-2645037
In this research, the authors inspect Tailoring the Silicon Cementation Applied to P265GH Grade Steel. This research looks to be appealing, novel, and also well-developed. Figures and Tables are included for better improvisation. I recommend the publication after minor changes. My suggestions are listed below:
Ø The abstract should be enhanced by adding some major findings. If possible add qualitative results.
Ø Literature is very weak. Please add more papers published recently, especially from the Coatings Journal.
Ø What is the main contribution addressed by you regarding the field? Add the novelty at the end of the introduction.
The conclusion should be elaborated. Start from your research and then add your findings.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing is required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First, thank you for the patience and patience with which you reviewed the paper. The observations/suggestions made are to the point and welcome, both for me and the journal's level.
I carefully went through the observations made and the recommended suggestions, trying in the following to answer you to them. The changes have been outlined in green highlight. Also, the words/phrases that I removed from the text are strikethrough.
Below are presented, in order the changes suggested by you.
I enhanced the Abstract.
- At your suggestion, I looked in the Coating Journal for documentation on the topic covered in the work, but I did not find it. If I really must, I will add from other sources.
- I added the novelty at the end of the introduction.
- I modified the conclusions.
Finally, I want to thank you once again for the time given and for the equidistance with which you analyzed the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper analyzes the optimal parameters of siliconizing as an effective method of protecting boiler steel P265GH when used in corrosive media. A mathematical model is proposed to clarify the interaction of the parameters that determine the quality of the silicon cemented layer. The key findings of the study are described and discussed in detail. Nevertheless, there are some comments on the manuscript:
- the state of the art as well as the introduction to the problem does not seem to be sufficiently outlined. Only a few references (5 sources) are cited in the introduction part. Most of them are from the 80s, 90s and earlier. No recent literature sources were cited. A revision of the manuscript in this regard will certainly contribute to a better understanding of the problem and the state of the art;
- the authors have extensive experience in the field of coatings and have published a number of papers in this area. The manuscript contains no or few references to the authors' own preliminary studies. For example, the paper Assessment of Processing Parameters of Pack Silicon Cementation onto P265GH Grade Steel was published in the MDPI Journal Materials in 2023. The paper also deals with the optimization of parameters in the siliconizing of P265GH steel. What is the relationship between the previous results and the new research? Please consider your already published research.
- please specify the dimensions of the samples;
- Table 1 contains two sets of data (experimental and reference?). This is not clear from the text.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
First, thank you for the patience and patience with which you reviewed the paper. The observations/suggestions made are to the point and welcome, both for me and the journal's level.
I carefully went through the observations made and the recommended suggestions, trying in the following to answer you to them. The changes have been outlined in grey highlight. Also, the words/phrases I removed from the text are strikethrough.
The literature in the field for this category of steel and this type of treatment is very poor, this is the motivation of the research carried out. If it is necessary, I will look for the current literature in relation to this thermochemical treatment process applied to high-grade steels.
Finally, I want to thank you once again for the time given and for the equidistance with which you analyzed the paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, you have incorporated all the suggested corrections. I will therefore recommend the work for publication.
