Microstructure and Texture Development in Thermomechanically Processed Leaded Brass

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

(1) Authors attempted to investigate the microstructure and texture development in thermomechanically processed leaded brass. However, the language of this paper is very poor. There are so many grammatical errors and instances of badly worded/constructed sentences. A thorough check and improvement is necessary.

(2) The abstract is suggested to be not only focused on the experimental results and conclusions, but also the innovation and significance of the present work  should be focused on the objective of the this work

(3) Some recent reports on the microstructure evolution and deformation mechanism in the alloy in leaded brass alloy should be simply reviewed in the introduction.

(4) The cutting direction of the sample and coordinate direction of EBSD test needs to be marked in experimental results. Otherwise, the discussion on texture will be unconvincing.

(5) The conclusion part of the article is too prolix. It is strongly suggested that authors should highlight upon the meaningful discussion in conclusion part.

(6) Figure legends should be revised to make them clearer. Such as, the order of the legend in Fig 10 is wrong. 

(7) The α phase, annealing twins, βʹ phase and lead particles should be marked by arrows in the experimental results. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper „Microstructure and Texture Development in Thermomechanically Processed Leaded Brass” is a submission which stays in convention of original scientific papers. The organization of the whole work is good and the results are essentially interesting and discussion logically sound. The study is rather to verify up-to-date knowledge, but plan of the experiment is good for show-cause argument. Although the matter seems niche, but the results can serve verification of assumptions and others’ conclusions on grain boundary engineering, both for brass as well as some other FCC-structured alloys. The results are properly introduced by literature review and observations backed up with well-presented illustrations with micrographs.

The text is well written in good English with few errors to draw reader’s attention.

Thus I have a good opinion on the work and I recommend it for publication in Metals.

 

However, there are a few issues to amend. Authors are expected to:

• Explain what is the basis for selection of TMP-1 and -2 condition. Although selection of temperature is roughly explained (the same explanation for both TMP schedules), it can be more detailed with considetation difference between them in the aspect of grain restoration effects, selection of strain value is not. Is the strain value referenced to expected behavior of g.b. or random choice to see the effect? As the strain is not large here, a question may arise what id applicability of results as compared to (industrial) practices.
• For clarity as graphical presentation of TMP cycles is suggested (optionally, time temperature diagram and scheme of straining with indication of direction of consecutive reductions)
• The description of results can be simplified by grouping together implications which concern e.g. for both TMP schedules, instead repeating the same separately.
• There are some style and grammar issues, as well as typos and punctuation errors to remove; also sentences with are essentially correct, but sound not clear or contain a shortcuts to be revised. Page 11, make sure the citing mark encloses referenced fragment. Some beginnings of sentences can be removed to make text concise. Please follow the scanned printout in this respect.

With corrected addressed issues, the manuscript is good for publication in Metals journal.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have carefully addressed the review comments. Based on the overall quality of this manuscript, I think this paper can be accepted. 

Author Response

Comment: The authors have carefully addressed the review comments. Based on the overall quality of this manuscript, I think this paper can be accepted. 

Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the valuable comments and suggestions made to improve the manuscript. The manuscript has been further revised and proofread to improve the grammar and readability.