A Review of High-Speed Turning of AISI 4340 Steel with Minimum Quantity Lubrication (MQL)
, Jaharah A. Ghani 1 and Mohammad Rasidi Mohammad Rasani 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review presents AISI 4340’s commercial usage in wide variety of industries such as construction, automotive and aerospace. It is usually machined in a hardened state through a hard turning process, which resulted in high heat generation, accelerated tool wear, low productivity and poor surface quality. The review is interesting, after answering the comments, it can be published in coatings:
1. Fig. 1, if the graph arer redrawn, it will be more nice.
2. Table 2, the author row is not common, it can be replaced by refs. or placed in the ending row.
3. Fig. 2 b, in the 2 set, the oil or air should be denoted.
4. Table 3，the main finds can be abstracted into several items, it will be more readable.
5. English should be improved by experts.
6. References have some errors, like ref. [21] and so on.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageminor revision
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please refer to the attached file for the respond to the reviewer comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe current paper reports on the review of ‘High-Speed Turning of AISI 4340 Steel with Minimum Quantity Lubrication (MQL)’. The paper lack content and most importantly, critical analysis of the available data. This particular field is quite mature and to standout, the authors need to come out with new perspective with critical analysis. Based on my assessment, I suggest major revision of this paper.
The detail comments are as follows:
1. The abstract needs to be revised. Try to incorporate some major findings that reflects literature scrutiny.
2. For generic image like Fig. 1, it is advisable to re-draw it instead of taking it from literature where the image resolution is quite poor.
3. What is the justification of the present work?
4. The ‘research gap’/ ‘what is missing in the current literature’ was not stand out in the motivation of the present work.
5. This particular subject area is quite mature as indicated by the reports available in literature. Thus to make the paper worthy the authors need to come out with ideas/facts that’s really stand out. Otherwise, it is just a compilation of information/facts already available in literature.
6. The authors are advised to enrich their manuscript by incorporation graphs and related critical analysis of information available in literature.
7. The simulation aspect of high-speed turning of such steel is completely absent in this manuscript.
8. The authors are encouraged to include more recent publications in this area and cite them accordingly in addition to their critical analysis.
9. Consider to include a separate ‘discussion’ section which will include the critical analysis.
10. Line 23-24: I am not quite sure about the authors’ claim, as I don’t see any further mention of that in the manuscript except in the text!
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please refer to the attached file for the respond
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe synthesis is very interesting,.
Just two important poins should be completed:
- in table 3, in each cited study, the main process parameters should be added to lead a better understanding and to limit the study frame.
- in part 4, some quantitative description about the Future recommendations would be absolutely necessay and more valuble.
A deail needs to be added: in table 1, the chemical composition should be precised in wt% or in at%;
Author Response
Please refer to the reviewer comments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
