Electrochemical Microslot Machining by Ultrasonic-Vibration-Aided Electrolyte on Nitinol Wire
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been major revised, which is much better than the original version.
And I'm fine with the revision. Just need to enlarge the fontsize inside some figures
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript submitted by Hung et al. aims at micro-scale medical equipment manufacturing using ultra-short aided pulse electrochemical machining. The influence of different factors is discussed and the manufacturing methodology for micro-slots is optimized in the report where the optimal parameters was obtained. I’d like to recommend this paper for publication if the following issues are addressed.
1. Some abbreviations in the text need to be noted on the first occurrence, such as ECM、USA(Figure 8).
2. The electrolyte concentrations in Table 2 does not match the expression in 3.1. There are three gradients in the table and 5 gradients in the text.
3. The Figure 6 is incorrectly labeled，and the same error needs to be checked in other charts.
4. What does the acronym USA mean? Is it ultrasonic vibration assist? Please Please check if this abbreviation is correct.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The objective of this paper is not clear. Why conduct this study? And literature review can be furthre improved. What are the current challenges?
Add some more descriptions into fig1. Such as wire and workpiece etc.
I believe the last 3 paragraphs come form the template! Please check the full paper carefully.
Error bar should be added to the measured results, unless no repeated experiments were conducted. How many times for each test?
Description of the measurement is missing.
Scale bar is needed in figs 4 6 8. 10. And what device is used to take these photographs?
I think these issues should be addressed first before further evaluate the results in this paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have uploaded again, smth goes wrong
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Аuthors should better present Figures.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
