Comparative Experimental Study of Cutting Forces and Surface Roughness in Tangential Turning of 42CrMo4 Low-Alloy Steel and X5CrNi18-10 Austenitic Stainless Steel from a Sustainability Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting research about turning 2 different steel materials from a sustainability perspective. The chosen topic is interesting and necessary for the current engineering world, as sustainability is a key factor for today and tomorrow. 

The author presented his results in excellent quality, which is respectable. Only a few corrections can be listed, and their significance is minor.

The literature review is great; the authors presented all the necessary information, and the number of up-to-date sources is acceptable.

The materials and methods are well defined; the reviewers did not raise any questions while reading the manuscript.

I also had no problem reading the whole manuscript; the English grammar and vocabulary are of a very high level.

Some minor notes:

• Page 10: The raw data are presented in table form, which is very difficult to understand. A graphic presentation highlighting the most important data would be preferable. Can the author explain why he used this form of result presentation?
• Line 397: The results reveal clear dependencies ....: it is not clear which exact result was meant in this sentence.  Which data line shows this clear dependency? What data from Table 2, 3 or 4 should be considered? What tendency (increasing or decreasing) is considered positive from the scope of this research? 
• Line 470: "Overall, X5CrNi18-10 exhibits consistently lower Sa and Sz compared to 42 CrMo4...", can the authors formulate an explanation for this sentence? Can the author formulate a hypothesis on what physical phenomenon could explain this measured tendency? I think the major focus of scientific research should be to identify the causes of the measured data and the trend. In some cases, the author formulated a clear explanation (example: Line 566: "This behaviour possibly reflects intensified plastic deformation and strain accumulation in the surface layer,...")
• Line 616: a missing space between Figure and 12.
• Line: 759: cm3/min, the 3 should be in superscript
• Please add some possible ways and routes for continuing this research in the future, at the end of the Summary chapter!

In mechanical manufacturing processes, tool wear is significant. Increased tool replacement is considered a sustainability question. Do you have any research on the tool wear rate? 

My overall evaluation is positive. I strongly recommend publishing this article after the review process.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The results are interesting. I recommend minor revisions, addressing the following points:

1. The manuscript has some minor grammatical errors, which should be carefully proofread.
2. Title: Only the grade is given without material classification; it is recommended to clarify this point.
3. Abstract：42CrMo steel is an ultra-high strength steel with high strength and toughness, and does not belong to austenitic stainless steel. Please confirm this again by the authors. Response surface analysis showed that feed rate and cutting depth are the dominant factors affecting cutting force, while feed rate and cutting speed mainly influence surface roughness. The reviewer holds that these are well-recognized conclusions in classical cutting principle textbooks, which are not recommended to be presented as experimental analysis conclusions in scientific and technical papers.
4. Many of the cited references are quite dated and fail to reflect the latest research progress. A reference (https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.A2500209) is quite relevant to the topic “Cutting forces provide essential insight into the mechanical load acting on the system and are closely related to energy consumption and tool wear”, which can be added to support your idea. should be increased.
5. The properties of these two materials should be listed in section 2.1 Workpiece Materials.
6. The conclusion of “The specific cutting force decreased by 15-30% with increasing feed” is not right. Please confirm it.
7. The relationship between functional roughness parameters Ssk and Sku and Sa and Sz should be given.
8. Improve the writing of conclusion. The novel experimental findings can be further refined.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf