SLM Additive Manufacturing of Oscillating Heat Pipe
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
My general evaluation for the article titled “3D Printed Oscillating Heat Pipe” is as follows. It is believed that the following corrections will be beneficial for the strengthening of the article.
1. The abstract section should be rearranged. In addition, the numerical results obtained as a result of the study should be given.
2. The number of resources in the introduction is insufficient. In particular, studies of similar nature should be examined.
3. The literature section remained weak. If there are more current literature studies, these should be examined in detail and added to the literature section. It is a suggestion for the literature part of the article to be more comprehensive. It may be useful to include relevant articles in 2020-2023 in references.
4. In the last paragraph of the introduction, what was done in this study should be explained.
5. The texts in the figures in the article should be edited. Figures should be made to look simpler and more elegant.
6. The article contains many figures. It needs to be simplified a little more. Especially in the 2nd v 3rd section, explanations should be added rather than figures.
7. The title of the 5th chapter should be the conclusion.
8. A separate discussion section should be added to the article
9. The authors should compare the results of their method with those of previous studies. Authors can do compare table (A new table can add about previous studies to result section.).
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
see attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper investigates using 3D Printing to fabricate Oscillating Heat Pipe. Totally speaking, this paper is well writing and interesting. The reviewer has the following minor concerns.
1. The title can be more specific with specific AM technique.
2. “which has led to the application of AM to construct designs that are difficult to achieve with traditional technologies.”. For this kind of statement, suggest including references, such as “A survey of additive manufacturing reviews, https://accscience.com/journal/MSAM/1/4/10.18063/msam.v1i4.21”; “Additive manufacturing technologies, Springer book”.
3. “Selected Laser Sintering (SLS), Selective Laser Melting (SLM), and Elec‐77 tron Beam Melting (EBM), each with its own advantages and disadvantages.”. For this statement, references are also necessary. Also, currently, this paper only has 16 references, should have more.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
It can be published as it is.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has no apparent improvements. As I mentioned in my previous review, there are other similar papers published, even in MDPI. In this context, I cannot suggest this manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your feedback and suggestion regarding the inclusion of references in our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed our manuscript and have made the necessary additions to ensure that we have provided a comprehensive overview of the existing literature in the field.
We have added the references you suggested and have also included additional references that we believe are relevant and supportive of our study's findings. These references have allowed us to further contextualize our research and demonstrate its significance in the field.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention and providing us with the opportunity to enhance the quality of our manuscript. We hope that you will find these additions satisfactory and that you will now consider our manuscript for publication.
Thank you again for your valuable feedback.
