Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Abstract

1. Please pay special attention to the Abstract, the English in this section must be perfect and substantial.

2. In Line 18, sentence should be more compendious.

Introduction

The introduction section should be logical and coherent. A succinct introduction statement is meant to convince the reader of your paper’s value. What was the gap in knowledge you wanted to fill? Why is it important? What was your strategy?

1. In line 28-30, sentence is missing references.

2. In line 33-38, the PET should be sorted into the Materials and Methods section, or description should be more concise in the Introduction section.

Material and method

1. In line 108, missing length unit.

2. Please explain Equation (1).

3. All equations throughout the text should use a unified expression to avoid confusion. See line 202, 211, 224, 226, 234, 265.

4. The Williamson-Greenwood criterion missing reference.

Results

1. All figures of the full text are of low quality and cannot be published. Please read the author's guideline for the figure and text specifications.

2. Figure 6, There is an uncalibrated diffraction peak with significant intensity near Fe (110), please explain it.

3. Figure 7, please provide an explanation or direct evidence of a continuous oxide layer.

4. Figure 8, I think it would be more intuitive and convincing to illustrate the variation in thickness with a series of SEM images.

5. Line 333, explain “2 tests”.

6. Figure 14 and 15, Generally, the hardness of steel softens with increasing temperature. I don't think the friction coefficient of the untreated sample remains the constant in the temperature range of 500 to 900℃, please explain it.

7. Figure 16, replace “Δ m” with a more intelligible representation.

8. Explain “Δ”.

Conclusions

The conclusions are insufficient. It must be clear to the readership what is new, significant and notable about the work, and what are the wider implications of such studies?

 

 

This paper lacks data evidence and the experimental results are ambiguous, perhaps the author should reorganize the results section to flesh out the evidence. I recommend a major revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is written in high quality, and a number of experiments were carried out in the article, the results of which are properly commented on and presented in figures and graphs.

I have only one comment, in the article in the section where the methods of the experiment are described, the names of the devices are given, but in this journalthe manufacturers are still attributed. I would advise authors to stick to this format and add manufacturer names for experimental devices.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript.

We have added a friction machine manufacturer.

Yours faithfully, Dr. Mukhacheva

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Results

1. Figures of microstructure. Please pay attention to the specification of the drawing. The font size in the figure should be unified.

2. Figure 14 and 15. The relationship between the abscissa axis (temperature) and the ordinate axis (friction coefficient) is easily misunderstood. Please consider a better expression, such as adding a description in the ordinate (at room temperature).

 

 

I recommend a minor revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your comments.

1. The text on the figures of microstructure has been corrected.
2. The inscriptions on the coordinate axes of Figures 14 and 15 have been corrected as you recommended.

Sincerely, Dr. Mukhacheva