Low-Temperature Joining of B4C Ceramics Using Cold-Sprayed Al-8wt%Si Alloy and Microstructure of the Vicinity of the Joint Interface
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The results of the research presented in the article are valuable and increase knowledge in this area. The microstructural analysis documents the research issues. The discussion of the results is at a satisfactory level, the formulated conclusions correctly relate to the obtained experimental results.
The editing part of the article is to be improved.
In many places throughout the article, there are no spaces between words, between units, as well as empty spaces between words. Similar editorial shortcomings were noticed in the captions of the chart axes.
For example: line 28, 52, 53, 56, 76, 79, 87, 89, 94, 293, Figure 2, 12, 13, and many others.
In point 4 of the Conclusions, the first letter in the sentence is written in bold - line 277, moreover, in line 280 there is no space between point 1) and the beginning of the sentence.
The entire article should be verified in terms of punctuation.
It seems unnecessary to differentiate the font size used for the tables describing Figure 11 (font size too large), compared to, for example, the table describing Figure 10.
Figure 13 shows the bold font of the numbers describing the X axis, while the font of the numbers describing the Y axis is in the normal style.
There is no uniform spelling style in References, there is only the first letter of the first name, or there is a full first name, there are capital letters of the authors, in other places only the first letters of the authors' last name, for example: line 302 "A. Baradeswaran, Elaya Perumal", " Hideki NAKASHIMA, verse 328 Masao OHTA, Yasuyuki NAKAO ", verse 337" Takeshi KUMAZAWA, Toru HONDA, You ZHOU, Hiroyuki MIYAZAKI, Hideki HYUGA, Yu-ichi YOSHIZAWA ", verse 353" X.G. Chen; R.S. Xie; Z.W. Lai ". Similar variation occurs in many other places. A uniform spelling style arrangement is not maintained, the entry should be corrected and standardized.
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer １
We thank the Reviewer for the valuable suggestions that have enhanced the quality of the manuscript. The corrections made in the revised manuscript are highlighted in red colour.
Q or C 1: The editing part of the article is to be improved.
In many places throughout the article, there are no spaces between words, between units, as well as empty spaces between words. Similar editorial shortcomings were noticed in the captions of the chart axes.
For example: line 28, 52, 53, 56, 76, 79, 87, 89, 94, 293, Figure 2, 12, 13, and many others.
Authors’ Response1: Thanks for pointing that out. We have corrected it as indicated in the text.
Q or C2:　In point 4 of the Conclusions, the first letter in the sentence is written in bold - line 277, moreover, in line 280 there is no space between point 1) and the beginning of the sentence.　The entire article should be verified in terms of punctuation.
Authors’ Response 2:ditto
Q or C3:　It seems unnecessary to differentiate the font size used for the tables describing Figure 11 (font size too large), compared to, for example, the table describing Figure 10.
Authors’ Response 3:ditto
.
Q or C4:　Figure 13 shows the bold font of the numbers describing the X axis, while the font of the numbers describing the Y axis is in the normal style.
Authors’ Response 4:ditto
Q or C5:There is no uniform spelling style in References, there is only the first letter of the first name, or there is a full first name, there are capital letters of the authors, in other places only the first letters of the authors' last name, for example: line 302 "A. Baradeswaran, Elaya Perumal", " Hideki NAKASHIMA, verse 328 Masao OHTA, Yasuyuki NAKAO ", verse 337" Takeshi KUMAZAWA, Toru HONDA, You ZHOU, Hiroyuki MIYAZAKI, Hideki HYUGA, Yu-ichi YOSHIZAWA ", verse 353" X.G. Chen; R.S. Xie; Z.W. Lai ". Similar variation occurs in many other places. A uniform spelling style arrangement is not maintained, the entry should be corrected and standardized.
Authors’ Response 5:ditto
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has been well prepared and the scientific contents seem to be reasonable. Nevertheless, there are some comments requiring for clarifications.
1. The paper should be written in the present tense and by third persons' point of view.
2. The main contribution and novelty of the present work should be clearly presented in the introduction section.
3. There are too many subsections in Sec. 2.
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer ï¼’
We thank the Reviewer for the valuable suggestions that have enhanced the quality of the manuscript. The corrections made in the revised manuscript are highlighted in red colour.
Q or C 1: The paper should be written in the present tense and by third persons' point of view.
Authors’ Response1: Thanks for pointing that out. We have corrected it as indicated in the text.
Q or C2: The main contribution and novelty of the present work should be clearly presented in the introduction section.
Authors’ Response 2: Thanks for pointing out. I have added the following sentence in the introduction part that describes the novelty.
“The novelty of this study is , to 1) clarify the process and conditions that enable joining of B4C at low temperatures below 600°C and obtain high strength; 2) select the cold spray method, which has rarely been reported for joining, and devise the for-mation of a thick film of Al-Si alloy adhered to the B4C surface, and 3) clarify the mech-anism of B4C joint interface formation when Al-Si alloy is used as an joint material by examining the microstructure details after joining.”
Q or C3: There are too many subsections in Sec. 2.
Authors’ Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We have reduced the number of sessions in Chapter 2 as indicated in the text.
==
Hideki KITA
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have successfully addressed the concerns raised by the reviewer, and thus the paper can be accepted in the present form.
