Mechanics and Cutting Performance of Multilayer Nanostructured TiAlN/TiSiN/ZrN Coatings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors investigated the coating process's effectiveness and also its performance while machining. It is very interesting and useful for industrial applications. However, for publication, these issues need to be addressed:
1. The paper title doesn't need to have "Research".
2. The abstract needs a quantitative results statement.
3. Provide the prior research that used /described thermodynamic solution theory.
4. Provide all the experimental details, such as the cutting fluid used for experimental reproducibility.
5. How were the cutting conditions selected for milling? Were the experiments repeated more than once?
6. Provide legends for figures 8, 17, etc.
7. Support the results with prior research.
8. Some references are missing issue, volume, and page numbers.
Overall, good work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe paper was presented well, but the following language issues need to be addressed:
1. Some of the sentences are difficult to read and comprehend, such as line 12 - "This paper examines the Ti6Al4V milling endmills coating." - rewrite them.
2. Avoid terms such as favored by people (line 35).
3. References—Some of the author's names are capitalized, and some are not—preferably not capitalized—such as references 1, 11, etc.
4. Check grammar in the results and discussion section.
Author Response
For research article
|
Response to Reviewer X Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Please check it. My answer to your question may not be comprehensive. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me and guide me. |
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Yes/Can be improved |
|
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Yes |
|
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes/Can be improved |
|
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes/Can be improved |
|
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable |
|
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes/Can be improved |
|
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: The paper title doesn't need to have "Research". |
||
|
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have delete the “Research on the” from the tittle. |
||
|
Comments 2: The abstract needs a quantitative results statement |
||
|
Response 2: Agree. I have added the quantitative results statement in the abstract. Check it from line 10 to line 25. |
||
|
Comments 3: Provide the prior research that used /described thermodynamic solution theory |
||
|
Response 3: Agree. I have added references to earlier research papers, see page 4 for details.. |
||
|
Comments 4: Provide all the experimental details, such as the cutting fluid used for experimental reproducibility. |
||
|
Response 4: Dear experts, all experimental details have been added, please check, lines 249-250, 256-257. |
||
|
Comments 5: How were the cutting conditions selected for milling? Were the experiments repeated more than once? |
||
|
Response 5: Dear experts, this experimental parameter is selected based on previous processing experience, and the experimental data can be repeated. The experiment in this paper is an experimental study |
||
|
Comments 6: Provide legends for figures 8, 17, etc. |
||
|
Response 6: Dear experts, currently we only have the sample test results and sample pictures, and no process pictures were taken. Please be aware.
|
||
|
Comments 7: Support the results with prior research. |
||
|
Response 7: Dear experts, This paper is the first original research and my first attempt to study coatings. No related papers were published earlier. |
||
|
Comments 8: Some references are missing issue, volume, and page numbers. |
||
|
Response 8: Dear experts, due to personal work errors, I missed the proofreading of this part. Now the proofreading is completed. Please refer to lines 550-591 for details. |
||
|
4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language |
||
|
Point 1: Some of the sentences are difficult to read and comprehend, such as line 12 - "This paper examines the Ti6Al4V milling endmills coating." - rewrite them |
||
|
Response 1: Dear experts, my English is indeed a little lacking. I have revised line 12 and proofread the entire text. I am very sorry for the inconvenience caused to you due to my personal work mistakes. |
||
|
Point 2: Avoid terms such as favored by people (line 35). |
||
|
Response 2: |
||
|
Point 3: References—Some of the author's names are capitalized, and some are not—preferably not capitalized—such as references 1, 11, etc. |
||
|
Response 3: Dear experts. This is my misunderstanding. I have revised it. Please check it. |
||
|
Point 4: Check grammar in the results and discussion section |
||
|
Response 4: Dear experts. I have checked the full text again, please check |
||
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors need to more emphasis the role of Zr on ductility behavior of the specimen.
How control the rupture of the coating during the long cyclic uses?
Does thickness of the proposed materials are optimized?
There are several typo and format errors. please revise.
JCPDS number should be assigned .
Refer and cite these articles: Thin Solid Films 518 (24), 7532-7534; Journal of Alloys and Compounds
Volume 776, 5 March 2019, Pages 679-690 Polish the conclusion section based on the outcomes.
Author Response
For research article
|
Response to Reviewer X Comments
|
||
|
1. Summary |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Please check it. My answer to your question may not be comprehensive. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me and guide me. |
||
|
2. Questions for General Evaluation |
Reviewer’s Evaluation |
Response and Revisions |
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
Yes/Can be improved |
[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below] |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
Yes/Can be improved |
|
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
Yes/Can be improved |
|
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
Yes/Can be improved |
|
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
Yes/Can be improved |
|
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
Yes/Can be improved |
|
|
3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors |
||
|
Comments 1: Authors need to more emphasis the role of Zr on ductility behavior of the specimen. |
||
|
Response 1: Fig 16 to Fig 21. Check it on line 406-453 |
||
|
Comments 2: How control the rupture of the coating during the long cyclic uses? |
||
|
Response 2: The addition of Zr element is the same as that of Si-based coating in the base layer and functional layer. Adding Zr element to the surface of Si-based coating adds a lubricating layer and improves the lubrication effect of the surface. This paper does not improve the crack resistance |
||
|
Comments 3: Does thickness of the proposed materials are optimized? |
||
|
Response 3: Dear expert, the coating thickness in this article has not been optimized. Your comments are very good. This is exactly what I am currently working on. The influence of different functional layer thickness and overall thickness of Zr-based coating on tool cutting performance |
||
|
Comments 4: There are several typo and format errors. please revise. |
||
|
Response 4: Dear expert, I am very sorry for the inconvenience caused to you. The full text has been revised. |
||
|
Comments 5: JCPDS number should be assigned . |
||
|
Response 5: Dear expert, your question is very good and very meaningful to me. The JCPDS you mentioned should refer to the XRD part of Figure 4. This part is mainly used to determine the element content. There is no need to compare with the reference card for the time being, but in future work I will pay attention to using the JCPDS card for comparison. |
||
|
Comments 6: Refer and cite these articles: Thin Solid Films 518 (24), 7532-7534; Journal of Alloys and Compounds |
||
|
Response 6: Dear expert, the article you recommended is very good and has been cited. Please be informed. |
||
|
Comments 7: Volume 776, 5 March 2019, Pages 679-690 Polish the conclusion section based on the outcomes. |
||
|
Response 7: Dear expert, I don't quite understand this question. If necessary, please explain it in detail. |
||
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
