Next Article in Journal
On the Icephobic Behavior of Organosilicon-Based Surface Structures Developed Through Atmospheric Pressure Plasma Deposition in Nitrogen Plasma
Next Article in Special Issue
Laser Dissimilar Joining of Al7075T6 with Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Polyamide Composite
Previous Article in Journal
Interlaboratory Study of Ice Adhesion Using Different Techniques
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Corrosion Resistance of Aluminum Alloy Modified by Laser Radiation
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Effect of Scanning Speed on the Interface Behavior and Dendrite Growth of Laser Remelted Fe-Based Ni/WC Coatings

Coatings 2019, 9(10), 677; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings9100677
by Yuncai Zhao, Li Wang * and Wen He
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Coatings 2019, 9(10), 677; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings9100677
Submission received: 26 September 2019 / Revised: 15 October 2019 / Accepted: 16 October 2019 / Published: 18 October 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Laser Surface Modification of Metallic Materials)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find attached comments for the articles. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for you letter and for the reviewers comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effect of scanning speed on laser remelted Fe-based Ni/WC coatings interface behavior and dendrite growth” (614533).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper , as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction.

 

Response to comment:The spelling in the title of Behavior is wrong and also, I will suggest author to think alternative heading of their paper.

Response: we are very sorry for our incorrect spelling in the title of Behavior, and I have rewritten the title “Effect of scanning speed on the interface behaviour and dendrite growth of laser remelted Fe-based Ni/WC coatings”

There are lots of space errors in the text like “phaseα-Al2O3” line 39. There is no space between phase and alpha. “theinterface” in line 44.

Response:   I am sorry for some spelling errors. The above is the picture before the modification. The screenshot below is the result of the modification.

 

Line 44-45 “As it well-known, theinterface problem is one of the three bottlenecks inremanufacturing and exerts a criticalinfluence on remanufacturing quality” it is not connected with the sequence of the text. Also there should be spacing between the words.

Response: As it is well-known, the interface problem is one of the three bottlenecks in preparation of coatings and exerts a critical influence in coatings quality.

It looks like author are using English translating tools while writing the articles that makes the concept of the words diverted and provides the different meaning. So please check grammar and sentences very seriously.

Response: The manuscript has undergone detailed grammar and spell checking

I will suggest author to look at the following paper for further strenghtern their article in order to see the interaction of Ni and Co. https://www.mdpi.com/2312-7481/4/4/54 ,https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cm050566s, and https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.5096530 in order to see how the coupling affect the coating. Also these paper help you to write the XRD diffraction part.

Response:  we have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. Due to the length of the article, please refer to the revised draft for details.

Please write carefully on the conclusion part in order to clearly identified your findings.

Response: we have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. (because the edit is too large, the markup will cause confusion, so the modified part will be displayed as an image.)

(Before modification)

( after modification)

Also have the same font and size in the article.

Response: We have made correction according to the reviewer’s comments.

The content on the paper looks interesting but the article is poorly explained and without sufficient improvement, its is less likely to be published.

Response: We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript.

Special thanks to you for your good comments. We appreciate for Reviewer’s warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. We thank the reviewers again for their comments and suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Report on “Effect of scanning speed on laser remelted Fe-based  Ni/WC coatings:interface behaviour and dendrite  growth”

This paper presents the study of laser remelting of the flame sprayed Fe-based Ni/WC cermet coating on the surface of a 45 steel. This paper is well  written and contain sufficient description of the experimental results. In my opinion this paper can be accepted after revision. Please find below the comments and suggestions that should help to improve the quality of the manuscript.

More information about laser used in the experiment are need. Laser wavelength, laser type, output power and beam properties should be provided in the paper. Authors should one again carefully proofread the article for example sections 2.2 and 4 have different fonts sizes that the rest of the paper. Additionally I also found many words that missing the space between them for example: “Refinementwas” should be Refinement was Refinementobjectively time-distancecurve

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Effect of scanning speed on laser remelted Fe-based Ni/WC coatings:interface behavior and dendrite growth”(614533).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper , as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction.

More information about laser used in the experiment are need. Laser wavelength, laser type, output power and beam properties should be provided in the paper. Authors should one again carefully proofread the article for example sections 2.2 and 4 have different fonts sizes that the rest of the paper. Additionally I also found many words that missing the space between them for example: “Refinementwas” should be Refinement was Refinement objectively time-distance curve.

Response: Important parameters of the laser have been added to the manuscript.We have made correction according to font size in the article and the font space in the manuscript has been modified.

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. Special thanks to you for your good comments. We appreciate for Reviewer’s warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. We thank the reviewers again for their comments and suggestion.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author, 
Glad to see a lot of changes (fonts, grammar and more). I would recommend the following minor changes in next phase before accepting for publication. 

Figures 11, 12 are with different fonts and are not good. Changes with the same or similar font size in the axes as possible.  Rewrite the equations in a publication format.  Make sure all figures are easily readable. 
Back to TopTop