Review Reports

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

The results reported in the manuscript are original and interesting for scientific knowledge and practical industrial applications. The paper is well written thus it deserves to be published in the present form. English should be checked.

Author Response

Answer to reviewer 1:

Thank you for your suggestion.

A revision of the English was made along the article; the corrections can be checked by means of the "Track Changes" function of word.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a robust work on a topic that deserves research. The scientific organisation is appropriate and the work is sound. I have some coments, however:

- Better explain Figure 1, as it is important. Eg., there are two curves and three materials.

- Better explain HA

- Improve English (mandatory)

- Figure 8: two curves have the same colour and line type

- Also mandatory: altough the work is correctly developed, I´m not still convinced about the novelty of the work. The authors should try to better explain why this is new (if it is), and what are the advances generated by the work. 

Author Response

Answer to reviewer 2:

Thank you for your suggestions.

1) A revision of the English was made along the article; the corrections can be checked by means of the "Track Changes" function of word.

2) Figure 1 was modified using colors for each line and differentiating the heat treatments carried out. Also, the text where this figure is explained, was modified in order to enhance the description of this figure. A better explanation of the "HA" term was included In "Materials and methods".

3) Figure 8 was also modified in order to facilitate the understanding of the different reported curves.

4) Two paragraphs were added in order to highlight the originality of the article: one of them in the last section of "Introduction" and the other, at the beginning of the conclusions. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript illustrates an experimental study on the effects of heat treatment on the morphology and mechanical properties of a multiphase TRIP steel.

The study is well designed and executed. The manuscript presents clearly the adopted methods and obtained results.

Therefore, I recommend publication

Author Response

Answer to reviewer 3:

Thank you for your suggestion.

A revision of the English was made along the article; the corrections can be checked by means of the "Track Changes" function of word.

Reviewer 4 Report

I think the authors have managed an extensive work and they have measured different phases very preciously. They have carried out that I find important in this type research, they have carried out a texture analyses as they have indicated in the Figure 6 as ODF map with exact positions of important orientations for bcc structures in steel and also Figure 7 as exact position of the most important austenite texture components on Euler space section for this analyses.

It merit to be published in your journal as it is.

Author Response

Answer to reviewer 4:

Thank you for your comments.

Round  2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can now be published.