Performance of TiSiN/TiAlN-Coated Carbide Tools in Slot Milling of Hastelloy C276 with Various Cooling Strategies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the section of introduction and results, the novelty of this manuscript is low, and it is not suitable for this journal. Especially, the wear mechanism is still unclear.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript submitted for review concerns a very important issue, namely machining of difficult-to-machine materials. Unfortunately, the manuscript in its current form is not suitable for publication in a journal – it requires Major Revision. The title and the manuscript itself are too long. The manuscript should be shortened by at least 10 pages, because it currently resembles a student report on a conducted experiment. This can be achieved by shortening the current text of the manuscript and abandoning some figures that do not contribute much to the presented research results. The decision regarding the presentation of some figures and text must be made by the Authors themselves, because trying to provide some advice would mean rewriting large fragments of this manuscript.
Please remember that if the drawing consists of several bulleted parts, the caption under the drawing should explain everything (e.g. the caption under Figure 4 is incomplete).
Please remember that the descriptions in the drawings must be legible.
If the cutting tool with the TiSiN/TiAlN coating was commercial, this does not exempt the Authors from writing something more about this specific coating.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough this paper presents some valuable observations, I am unable to recommend it for publication due to several significant deficiencies. First, the characteristics of the TiSiN/TiAlN coatings are insufficiently detailed; critical parameters such as coating thickness, composition (e.g., Si at %, Al at %), and details of the PVD process—specifically whether sputtering was used, as opposed to cathodic arc—are missing. Clarifying these aspects is essential for reproducibility and for contextualizing the results (if a coating has macroparticles, the wear results are completely different). Second, the presented results are limited, and additional test data could enhance the discussion, particularly regarding wear mechanisms. Analyses such as Raman spectroscopy and XPS would be valuable for elucidating oxidative and adhesive wear modes. Third, the presentation of the results is inadequate. Important parameters such as friction data (friction coefficient/force) and wear rates are absent, despite their significance for understanding wear behavior. The authors mention variations in friction in some paragraphs but do not provide quantitative data for conditions such as MQL and Cryo-COâ‚‚, which would allow meaningful comparison with existing studies like reference [31]. Then we can judge the lubrication quality precisely (which regimes have lower friction coefficients e.g. between MQL and Cryo-CO2 conditions). Furthermore, roughness measurements (Ra) were taken from nine designated locations on the machined surface, but the standard deviation was not reported. Additionally, root mean square (RMS) roughness data were not included. Regarding hardness measurements, three repetitions are insufficient; at least five repetitions should be conducted, and the standard deviation should be reported to provide a reliable statistical basis. Lastly, it would be advantageous to perform nanoindentation tests with a 1 N load at multiple locations across different samples. This approach would account for potential variability, especially in cutting depths below 1 mm, and provide a more comprehensive characterization of the mechanical properties.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript can be published in this journal.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your responses to the comments and corrections to the manuscript. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised, but there are still some shortcomings.
Specific comments:
1) Figure 4 does not contribute significant information to the manuscript. It can be omitted.
2) Temperature maps are shown in Figure 5. There is no legend indicating which color corresponds to which temperature.
3) The results presented in Tables 5 and 6 should be presented in one table (value ± uncertainty). What is the reason for introducing the second roughness parameter Rq next to the Ra parameter?
4) Instead of Tables 7 and 8, there should be one table, where the last column would contain the value (e.g.) 221.5 ± 30.8. Instead of these tables, wouldn't it be better to indicate the uncertainty in Figure 16?
5) The roughness values ​​are given in the conclusions. Do they concern the Ra or Rq parameter? – in chapter 3.3, the roughness parameter Rq also appears next to the Ra parameter (Tables 5 and 6).
6) The conclusions state: “Cutting speed and cutting feed played critical roles in surface outcomes”. Cutting speed and cutting feed were not the subject of the research – they had the same value during all the studies.
7) The hardness application mentions thermal stress. What was its value, how was it determined?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough I expect more improvements, however I accept this version.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your corrections/additions to the manuscript. I recommend the manuscript for publication in the journal.
