Effect of Processing Routes on Physical and Mechanical Properties of Advanced Cermet System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors announce that in the presented work they will show the impact of conventional and spark plasma sintering on the physical and mechanical properties of advanced cermets based on nanoTi(CN). However, the study lacks an assessment of such impact.

Fig. 1. Phase analysis of diffractograms is missing. The highest diffractogram is probably 30 hours, not 0 hours. The abbreviation for "hours" is "h." not "hr."

Fig. 4, 5, 6. Poor quality of micrographs, especially Fig. 6a..

The work lacks a concept. Basically, only XRD and SEM results are presented, of poor quality and poorly interpreted. TEM results are also not interpreted.

The experimental part is weak. There is no information about the research equipment used and experimental conditions.

The "Discussion" lacks discussion of the results, comments and conclusions.

What was the purpose of the presented research?

The article requires significant additions and reorganization before publication

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor language and spelling errors

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1, good afternoon.

Please, see the attached file - Author Response.

Thank you very much.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Dr. Jorge Humberto Luna-Domínguez

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on examining the effects of processing routes on the physical and mechanical properties of advanced cermet systems.

 

However, this paper is more like an experimental report with various settings. It’s more like making some samples followed by some characterization works and describing what can be observed from the characterization images, i.g., XRD, SEM, etc. What’s the hidden scientific meaning of running the synthesis and characterization works? Why do authors conduct these experiments? And what’s the deeper understanding and scientific finding of the obtained results? 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Several sentences need to be improved. They are not presented clearly. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2, good afternoon.

Please, see the attached file - Author Response.

Thank you very much.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Dr. Jorge Humberto Luna-Domínguez

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a precious collection of articles dealing with cermets, whose composition and sintering conditions are collected in a table. The same concerns the physical properties of the cermets.
Particularly interesting is the authors' work on nanocerments. The cermets are produced using conventional method and SPS. The SPS method provides better final material than conventional.
The paper finds its interest among technologists.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is clear and concise. However, much can be done concerning punctuation, articles, and prepositions. The text should be checked with care.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #3, good afternoon.

Please, see the attached file - Author Response.

Thank you very much.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Dr. Jorge Humberto Luna-Domínguez

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been supplemented and the elements indicated in the review have been corrected. However, the quality/resolution of SEM images is still poor. I understand that substantially improving the resolution of SEM images may require performing new measurements, and this may be impossible. In this situation, the presented corrected drawings may be accepted.
However, I would like to ask for some minor additions:

1. line 215: insted of: "hr." schould be "h."

2. In Figure 1, similarly to Figure 3, the identified phases should be marked on the diffractogram (one is enough).

3. There is still no information about the research equipment used

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1, good morning.

Please, see the attached file - Author Response.

Thank you very much.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Dr. Jorge Humberto Luna-Domínguez

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good for publishing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Good for publishing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2, good morning.

Please, see the attached file - Author Response.

Thank you very much.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. Dr. Jorge Humberto Luna-Domínguez

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors completed the information requested. I recommend printing the article in the presented, corrected form.