Tool Wear in Nickel-Based Superalloy Machining: An Overview

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article can be proposed for publication after major revision. The following recommendations should be considered when revising:

    1. The abstract should specifically state what the main aspects of the review are (wear mechanism, etc.) instead of general uninformative phrases about the widespread use of nickel alloys and their properties. General considerations should be given at the beginning of the introduction. Therefore, the abstract should be corrected.

2   2. Please check the paper text for possible errors. In particular:

ü  the words "we first" are repeated twice (line 84)

ü  the first letter of the author's name "olodymyr" is missing in literary source 18.

ü  in the same literary source 18 the names and surnames of the authors are mixed up. The authors' first names are given instead of their surnames, and the surnames are given only by the first letter.

ü  In literature source 24, only the first letters of the authors' names and surnames are given, and again the first and last names are mixed up.

ü  and others.

    3. Please format the literary sources according to the journal's requirements: semicolons after each author's name, commas, page designations of “pp”. and others (see Instructions for Authors - references).

4   4. For each literary source, the DOI must be given.

5  5. Figure 1 can be excluded from the paper because it carries almost no information. It is already sufficiently given in the text of the article (see lines 29-32).

6  6. Solid reviews on machining processes usually contain much more literary sources (200 - 300 sources) compared to the proposed review. In the literature considered by the authors, there are no known studies and already performed reviews on hard-to-cut machining of metals. In particular, with the exception of one source, there are no scientific papers and reviews from CIRP journals. I ask the authors to consider analyzing these literature sources.

7. The conclusion must contain the specific summary of the review instead of the general considerations. In particular, it is necessary to formulate the essence of wear mechanisms, the essence and content of wear optimization, the essence of "green" machining. Exactly the essence - instead of the name.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In this article, the authors provide an overview of the field of tool wear in the machining of nickel-based superalloys. They have presented the mechanism of tool wear and ways to extend tool life. They have also presented work dealing with optimization of input parameters and machining environment. Based on this, this paper covers several areas in the field of nickel alloy machining. This article will be of interest to readers in this area of interest. It is difficult to judge whether a good number of literature sources have been consulted. However, since the subject is closely related to an alloy and deals with wear analysis, the number of references 61 is quite adequate. With minor suggestions to the authors, I consider the paper acceptable for the Materials journal.

In chapter number 3, each subchapter should be completed. For example, in subchapter 3.1 Tool Coatings, the text gives only facts, i.e., a brief description of the cited articles. Perhaps at the end of the subchapter it should be described in a few sentences which coatings are recommended (suitable) for machining nickel alloys. The same applies to the other subchapters (3.2, 3.3, and 3.4). So the recommendation is that there should be a small conclusion at the end of each subchapter.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

As the authors addressed most of the concerns pointed out in my review of the original submission, I would recommend accepting this manuscript for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, thank you for the correction of the paper. It can now be recommended for publication in the journal "Processes".