Modification of Microstructure and Mechanical Parameters of Austenitic Steel AISI 316L under the Action of Low Friction
, Daria Topal 1, Dragisa Vilotic 3, Marko Vilotic 3,* and Sergei Alexandrov 4,5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is interesting, and they are reported in a clear way. However, there is a need for certain clarifications and additions:
1. Abstract - provide some numerical values as properties. It looks general.
2. The introduction part is quite small. The literature review looks like it was written for a report and not for the manuscript. Rewrite the introduction again. To improve the coherence of the introduction, it is important to ensure that each idea is connected to the previous one. This means that the discussion should flow smoothly from one concept to the next, without any abrupt shifts or gaps in understanding. By linking each research study to the previous works, the reader can better understand the context of the current research and how it fits into the broader field of study.
3. In the ‘Introduction’ the reason why authors are dealing with the subject and what kind of scientific problem they are going to solve are not given.
4. The introduction section of the manuscript appears to have a deficiency in the citation of similar works published prior to this study. Including more references to relevant literature can help readers better understand the topic being discussed and the context in which this research was conducted. By providing a broader perspective on the research area, the introduction can be strengthened, and its significance can be highlighted.
5. The novelty of the current work is not clear as a lot of work has already been done in this area be explicitly denoted.
6. The Reviewer recommends the Authors to rewrite the last paragraph of the introduction section in a way to stress the novelty.
7. Some of the images are not of good quality. May consider improving the quality of the images(e.g., Figure 2 and Figure 3).
8. The authors are advised to draw comparisons with previous literature to justify the results.
9. Including a table at the end of the results and discussion section that compares your research results with those of others in the field can be highly beneficial for readers who are interested in this topic. By presenting these comparisons in a clear and concise format, readers can easily see how your findings relate to previous research and gain a better understanding of the implications of your work.
10. Rewrite the Conclusions again - Important new results and knowledge along with their potential use should be listed. Being as quantitative as possible. Do not just summarize what work was conducted in the manuscript.
11. A proper improvement in English is needed.
12. A few references need to be updated with some recent papers published in the last years.
A proper improvement in English is needed.
Author Response
Please see the Word file attached. The changes are marked with yellow.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work, entitled "Modification of Microstructure and Mechanical Parameters of Austenitic Steel AISI 316L Under the Action of Low Friction", is focused on the study of tribological properties of AISI 316L austenitic steel and the effect of speed during the friction test on the microstructure and mechanical properties. The change in properties due to friction hardening was observed on the surface and in the cross section of the samples. It was shown that low friction with a speed of 30 cm/s is capable of introducing noticeable microstructural and strength modifications.
Point 1: The presented work does not show enough novelty for Metals journal. The motivation is not well explained, and the results look relatively trivial without adequate justification and explanation. The organization of the manuscript is slightly chaotic and unusual. Only three references from a total of 29 are from 2018 or later, and in addition, two of them belong to the co-authors. This makes the research seem out of date. Moreover, 11 of a total of 29 are self-citations. The manuscript in the present form should not be accepted for publication in Metals. However, in the following text, there are several suggestions on how the manuscript could be improved.
Point 2: In the introduction section, there is a lot of “textbook” theory about friction but very little about current research in the area under study. This section should be rewritten and expanded with a “state-of-the-art” overview.
Point 3: The experimental section is insufficient. There is no information about the friction test and samples’ preparation (cleaning before the friction test; what happened with the samples after the friction test – the washers were cut up? Metallographically prepared?). The lines 113-124 are unnecessary, it is the standard Oliver & Pharr method, which is widely known.
Point 4: Why was the nanoindentation made at different loads? Need to be explained. At first sight, indentations with a reasonably chosen load and at different distances from the friction surface would be better.
Point 5: Figure 2 is trivial with no informational value. Also, other figures (4, 5, 7, 8) should be more condensed (multiple lines/dependencies in one graph). On Fig. 3, the scale is missing.
Point 6: Line 175 – the indentation size effect in the case of steel and a load of 20 mN is improbable. The increase is probably due to more imprecise measurements due to surface roughness and a relatively low load. Surface roughness should be specified.
Point 7: Standard deviations are missing in the manuscript. For nanoindentation measurements, it is a necessity, and without them, it is difficult to evaluate the given data.
Point 8: Lines 176-178 and 309-310 – there are values of 500 and 50 μm, but it is not well explained where these values come from. It seems to be one of the important results, but it receives little attention.
Point 9: Discussion about relaxation parameters is interesting, but more references are needed. Again, standard deviations are necessary.
Point 10: The serration effect is connected mainly with metallic glasses, I don’t think that instabilities here are connected with it.
Author Response
Please see the Word file attached. The changes are marked with yellow.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This article explores the influence of prolonged low friction on the mechanical properties of austenitic stainless steel. While the abstract is acceptable, it lacks specificity to captivate readers. The literature review is insufficient in convincing the reviewer of the research's necessity. However, the experimental section is clear and replicable, except for the notation of rotational speed in cm/sec, which the reviewer disagrees with. The study concludes that low friction at a velocity of v = 30 cm/s induces noticeable changes in microstructure and strength. This conclusion is based on experimental observations and is likely to attract readers working in the field of tribology. Before accepting the article, the following issues need to be addressed.
1. The abstract should be revised to clearly state the purpose, methodology, and main findings regarding the impact of friction on AISI steel.
2. To strengthen the justification for this research, it is recommended to incorporate more recent studies in the literature review. The inclusion of predominantly older articles raises concerns about the current state of tribology research and prompts the question of whether there are ongoing scientific endeavours in this field.
3. It is advised to refrain from using grouped citations such as [1-10] in the manuscript. Citing a range of ten articles in a single statement lacks justification and may undermine the clarity and transparency of the references. It is preferable to individually cite relevant articles to provide readers with a more comprehensive and accessible list of sources. This approach ensures that each cited work receives proper recognition and enables readers to easily locate specific references for further exploration and verification.
4. At line 101, the reviewer expresses disagreement with the notation of rotational speed (v ≈30 cm/s) and recommends the use of standard notation instead. The same for other speeds that were mentioned in this manuscript.
5. In Figure 1, improvements should be made to enhance its quality. There is a discrepancy in font sizes for the scale bar of 30 µm in Figure 1a, which should be addressed for consistency. Additionally, the depiction of the friction surface (top view) and the view in section lacks clarity. To improve understanding, it is suggested to include a schematic that clearly illustrates both the top view and sectional view. This will provide readers with a clearer representation of the experimental setup and facilitate their comprehension of the results.
6. Since the authors stated that the results were obtained by averaging data from 10 samples, it is necessary to include error bars in the results.
7. The conclusion lacks clarity and needs to be more specific. It is important to explicitly state the findings from the results and highlight the distinct observations between 30 cm/s and 300 cm/s. Additionally, the conclusion should be based solely on the experimental observations and not on references to previous research. Therefore, any references should be removed from the conclusion.
Minor
Author Response
Please see the Word file attached. The changes are marked with yellow.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The authors address the problem of the changes on the microstructure and mechanical properties of AISI 316L austenitic steel subjected to low dry (metal/metal) friction. The research was well designed and the conclusions are in line with what would be expected. This is a sound paper that can be published as is. However I suggest, in the graphs of figure 4 (and 5) to remove the straight lines connecting the data points replacing it by a trend curve (linear... or not). Also the uncertainty values of each measured value should always be indicated, specially at table 2 (in a good metrological work the results of all measures must include the associated uncertainty, but in tabe 2 is particularly relevant)
Author Response
Please see the Word file attached. The changes are marked with yellow.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised version of the work, entitled "Modification of Microstructure and Mechanical Parameters of Austenitic Steel AISI 316L Under the Action of Low Friction", is significantly improved over the original version of the manuscript. Compared to the previous verdict, I have changed my mind, and after minor revision, it can be accepted for publication in the Metals journal.
Almost all questions were answered, and suggestions were incorporated into the new version of the manuscript. However, I have three notes and questions:
Point 1: You are comparing measurements at 30 and 300 RPM. Based on the introduction, am I correct that the results of the 300 rpm measurement are from your previous work? It should be declared somewhere in the text, maybe in the experimental section or somewhere around Table 1.
Point 2: This question was not addressed in the first response. Why were different loads in the range of 20 to 400 mN used for nanoindentation measurements? Please add a short explanation to the experimental section.
Point 3: In line 268, the velocity value is missing.
Author Response
Please check the Word file attached. Changes in the manuscript are marked in blue.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The reviewer is happy with the explanation
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
