Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled “Possibilities of Limiting Spare Parts Consumption That Are Submitted to Abrasive Wear” is well structured and well written, which is easy to follow. The figures and tables are neat and easy to understand. The methodology is thoroughly explained and the work overall seems to be skillfully performed.

Generally, I think this manuscript can be accepted for publication after minor revision.

 

It is recommended to take notice the following:

A little bit of rearranging of the abstract is needed maybe. Abstract is usually divided into four parts WHY, WHAT, HOW, and main conclusions.

WHY  This section usually contains one or two lines mainly defining what is the objective of the study or this work was done.

WHAT  This is the main portion of the abstract. It contains what was done. Like what simulations have been performed what kind of parametric studies are done to support the WHY section.

HOW  In this section you will define how u have achieved the WHAT section points. What kind of methodologies you have utilized to achieve the goals defined in WHAT section?

Usually at the end you will include one or two lines that how it is going to benefit the scientific community or what are the readership of this paper.

Thus, the abstract should be modified.

Do not use the first person of “we, I” in the scientific paper., For example, we have performed manufacturing and reconditioning experiments for manufacturing and reconditioning methods regarding tamping tools. It can be revised as“manufacturing and reconditioning experiments were carried out to…..”.

For the description and structure, you can refer to the description of those papers

https://doi.org/10.1080/17480272.2022.2086064

https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10070567

 

Please provide the references for all equations.

 

 

The analysis of the results regarding the suitability of using prototype electrodes with properties that comply with the abrasive wear regime of tampering tool cleats, in view of their reconditioning, have been encouraging, with the observation that more experiments will be required, which would allow the welding procedure to be optimized, so that the risk of fissure occurrence in the deposited layer would be reduced. It is hard to follow. Please rewritten.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors need to address following points to improve the quality of the article.  Article looks like joining of cut and pieces. Authors are advised to rewrite the entire article more effectively. Avoid small paragraphs. Also, link between the paragraphs is missing, which reduced the readability for readers.

·         The abstract is a summary of the introduction, materials and method, results and conclusion. This order needs to be followed. The methodology, results and conclusion component of the abstract should be properly captured.

·         Authors need to write introduction more effectively by citing proper references. 

·         Highlight contribution of the study to knowledge gap/specific problem.

·         Cite the reference for Table 1 & 2 and Figure 5.

·         Quality of figure 8 is poor. It is advised to improve the same.

·         “Table 3. Chemical composition of prototype electrodes (%).” Is it referred or analysed using chemical analyser.

·         “15÷20 minutes” Use “-“ not “÷”. Check entire manuscript.

·         Results and discussion part looks shallow.

·         Results need to be explained with proper reasonings.

·         Kindly reconcile the conclusion with the study objectives.

·         What are the practical implications of this study and the future directions? kindly state

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Please, see my comments:

Figures 19 and 20: They are not Figures - they are Tables.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for taking up such an important issue. The research of yours can bring great benefits to heavy industry by decreasing costs and extending the effective life of machines.

I have provided you with extensive commentary within the body of the PDF file I downloaded from the editorial platform. Please use this material to improve the paper. The ammended PDF is attached to this message.

There are, on my part, two general comments:
1. You must have the paper proof read to improve the English language. In some passages there are structural flaws which greatly impede the reception of the intended message. And, please, do use shorter and less complex sentences.
2. The narrative quality of a research paper bridging science and industrial product development must be crisp and simple. All the technical details must be gathered in tables for ease of perception and comparison. Any initial properties (e.g. all steel, uncoated pieces) of specimens must be compared with the modified ones. If such synthetic method of presentation of results is used the reader will have an improved understanding of the text and an overall better impression.

Wishing you all the best in your work,

your reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have addressed all the points. Article may be accepted in present form. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for such a detailed response. The paper has gained a lot in meritoric quality and is much easier to understand.

Well done!

Best regards,

Your reviewer