Next Article in Journal
Numerical Study on Pile Group Effect and Carrying Capacity of Four-Barreled Suction Pile Foundation under V-H-M Combined Loading Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
Preparation and Application of Coal-Liquefaction-Residue-Based Carbon Material
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Enhancing the Surface Quality of FDM Processed Flapping Wing Micro Mechanism Assembly through RSM–TOPSIS Hybrid Approach

Processes 2022, 10(11), 2457; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10112457
by Devaraj Rajamani 1, Esakki Balasubramanian 1,* and Lung-Jieh Yang 2
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3:
Processes 2022, 10(11), 2457; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10112457
Submission received: 28 October 2022 / Revised: 16 November 2022 / Accepted: 17 November 2022 / Published: 19 November 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well written and can be published as it is.

Author Response

The responses to the reviewer has been enclosed herewith.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The originality and novelty of the research activity are not well exposed and highlighted. Please, improve the Abstract.

Page 14,15- Figures 6,7- please, explain more in deep. The Figures are not cited in the text.

Page 16- Table 6 is not cited and explained in the text.

Page 18-19 Conclusion- the future direction of research is missing. The Pro & Contras are missing.

Author Response

The responses to the reviewer has been enclosed herewith.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The manuscript needs revision based on following comments and suggestions.

 

1.      Include novelty of research work in the introductions sections. Lack of comprehensive literature support, hence include some more recent relevant literature papers in the introduction sections.

2.      The manuscript has many typo/grammatical errors. Author need to revise the entire manuscript carefully.

3.      Some keywords are rephrased. Authors should carefully check and update in the revised manuscript

Example: Line No: Cross product into Interaction.

4.      Include chemical compositions of ABS.

5.      Authors should justify why surface roughness alone considered for the study? The other response why not taken into account.

6.      The observed surface roughness values are 22-28 μm, these surface are very rough how this could be considered as precision manufacturing process?  

7.      The authors should considered form and waviness accuracy and other 3D parameters which could help better understanding the surface quality.

8.      Include high resolution of Figure No 1.

9.      Line spacing is not uniform, authors should follow journal standards.

10.  In result and discussion, include the scientific finding and justification with relevant literature.

 

Author Response

The responses to the reviewer has been enclosed herewith.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop