Influence of Defects in Surface Layer of Al2O3/TiC and SiAlON Ceramics on Physical and Mechanical Characteristics
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1- Reduce the long of the abstract to 50%.
2- Please revise the language carefully.
3- You must state the main result in the abstract.
4- The introduction must be extended with new references for different materials.
5- Revise the order of the equations, figures, and tables throughout the whole manuscript.
6- The explanation of some figures is poor.
7- State only the important results in the conclusion.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your kind evaluation of our work. We agree with all your proposals and comments and have modified the manuscript accordingly.
We hope the manuscript will be suitable for publishing in Ceramics and attract many potential journal readers with your comments. The introduced corrections in the text of the manuscript are marked yellow.
Kind regards,
Authors.
Reviewer comments
Point 1: Reduce the long of the abstract to 50%.
Response 1: Thank you so much for your kind recommendation. The abstract has been revised. Now it does not extend to 200 words but includes the main results.
Point 2: Please revise the language carefully.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing it out; it’s revised once again by a native speaker. The grammar report is attached.
Point 3: You must state the main result in the abstract.
Response 3: Thank you, the abstract is revised.
Point 4: The introduction must be extended with new references for different materials.
Response 4: Thank you, the introduction is revised. Some new data are added.
Point 5: Revise the order of the equations, figures, and tables throughout the whole manuscript.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing it out; the order is revised.
Point 6: The explanation of some figures is poor.
Response 6: Thank you, we have tried to improve the titles of two Figures 9 and 10, 12 and 13, and added some descriptions in the text to make it even more understandable. We are open to improving it further if the expert (reviewer) points out the places which stay for him unclear.
Point 7: State only the important results in the conclusion.
Response 7: Thank you, the conclusions are revised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript titled “Influence of Defects in Surface Layer of Al2O3/TiC- and SiAlON-Ceramics on Physical and Mechanical Characteristics” focuses on the influence of various processes of abrasive processing, such as diamond grinding, lapping, and polishing, on the state of the surface of ceramics and mechanical, and tribological characteristics. Performed investigations are interesting and worth publishing. The way of data presentation is clear and transparent. However, I dare question whether the proposed defectiveness index is necessary. Most of the data shows that the defectiveness index affects the observed values ​​in a non-linear way. After observations of the surface, I can conclude that the introduced defectiveness index increases, but also the currently commonly used Ra parameter increases. The Ra parameter should be included in table 1 for comparison. In the presented material authors should show that the Ra parameter fails in the prediction of mechanical, and tribological characteristics. Otherwise, both parameters seem to be equally valid but determining the roughness Ra is much simpler. Crack resistance measured by indentation should be associated with subsurface defects, and not, as the authors claim, with the surface defects of the material. The subsurface defects can be detected using ie. positron annihilation spectroscopy.
Minor correstions:
There is lack of lower and upper index in units and chemical formulas
Line 16 => The
Line 315 => shortcut AE is not defined
Line 350 => Figure 12 (not Figure 11)
Fig. 11 and Fig.12 => color depth scale should be added
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your kind evaluation of our work. We agree with all your proposals and comments and have modified the manuscript accordingly.
We hope the manuscript will be suitable for publishing in Ceramics and attract many potential journal readers with your comments. The introduced corrections in the text of the manuscript are marked green.
Kind regards,
Authors.
Reviewer comments
Point 1: The manuscript titled “Influence of Defects in Surface Layer of Al2O3/TiC- and SiAlON-Ceramics on Physical and Mechanical Characteristics” focuses on the influence of various processes of abrasive processing, such as diamond grinding, lapping, and polishing, on the state of the surface of ceramics and mechanical, and tribological characteristics. Performed investigations are interesting and worth publishing. The way of data presentation is clear and transparent. However, I dare question whether the proposed defectiveness index is necessary. Most of the data shows that the defectiveness index affects the observed values in a non-linear way. After observations of the surface, I can conclude that the introduced defectiveness index increases, but also the currently commonly used Ra parameter increases. The Ra parameter should be included in table 1 for comparison. In the presented material authors should show that the Ra parameter fails in the prediction of mechanical, and tribological characteristics. Otherwise, both parameters seem to be equally valid but determining the roughness Ra is much simpler. Crack resistance measured by indentation should be associated with subsurface defects, and not, as the authors claim, with the surface defects of the material. The subsurface defects can be detected using ie. positron annihilation spectroscopy.
Response 1: Thank you so much for your kind recommendation. In practice, having the same Ra value for significantly different profiles is common. If the subject of assessment is the surface layer's defectiveness level, then a significant decrease in the Ra parameter will not always indicate a significant decrease in defectiveness. The relevant explanation is provided in the manuscript’s text, and additional Ra data are added to the tables.
Minor corrections:
Point 2: There is lack of lower and upper index in units and chemical formulas
Response 2: Thank you for noticing it; it is revised through the manuscript.
Point 3: Line 16 => The
Response 3: Thank you, it is revised.
Point 4: Line 315 => shortcut AE is not defined
Response 4: Thank you, it is revised. AE is the acronym for acoustic emission.
Point 5: Line 350 => Figure 12 (not Figure 11)
Response 5: Thank you for pointing it out; it is revised.
Point 6: Fig. 11 and Fig.12 => color depth scale should be added.
Response 6: Thank you, the figures are revised.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have been adequately considered all the points made in the previous report.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript after the introduced changes is suitable for publication.
