Next Article in Journal
Fatigue Behaviors of Resistance Spot Welds for 980 MPa Grade TRIP Steel
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Zr, Y on the Microstructure and Properties of As-Cast Cu-0.5Y-xZr (wt.%) Alloys
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Vacuum Brazing Ti–15–3 with a TiNiNb Braze Alloy

Metals 2019, 9(10), 1085; https://doi.org/10.3390/met9101085
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Metals 2019, 9(10), 1085; https://doi.org/10.3390/met9101085
Received: 14 September 2019 / Revised: 5 October 2019 / Accepted: 7 October 2019 / Published: 9 October 2019

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a series of aspects related to Vacuum Brazing Ti-15-3 with a TiNiNb Braze Alloy.

From the analysis of the information presented in the paper I found the following:

 

the paper, by its content, presents a series of information that could be useful to the scientific community, provided they are structured properly; the introduction part is improperly structured; other results of current research in the field could also be considered; from the presented elements it is not possible to establish the novelty of the research in relation to the information known at the present time; in the part of materials and methods, information should also be presented related to the mode of: preparation of the samples to be brazed, characteristics of the brazing installation, technological parameters of the brazing process, data regarding the vacuum installation; in lines 42-46 the chemical composition of the materials expressed in% should be written in the same way; unfortunately, the organization of the experiments is a rudimentary one, in the sense that no information was presented which was the basis for the decision to take in analysis the samples of 1000oC / 600s , etc.; the way of construction for Figure 2 is not presented, and if it is taken from the specialized literature it is necessary to specify this; it also has a very poor resolution; the part of the discussions should be detailed and presented the novelty and contribution that the paper has to the development of knowledge in the field in relation to the information known at the present time; the conclusions should be more focused on the practical applicability of the research results

On the basis of the specified ones, the paper can be published after the mentioned changes have been made.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed your article titled "Vacuum Brazing Ti-15-3 with a TiNiNb Braze Alloy".

In my opinion, your article requires some very important improvement before potential publishing. In this state the paper should be rejected. However, I listed my comments, which may be helpful for further submission.

General:

In my opinion, the references list is very short. I propose to add some positions.

Abstract:

You should change this section in accordance to "instruction for authors" od Metals journal. Abstract should be clear but should also contains information listed by the journal.

Introduction:

This section looks grotesque. Your Introduction does not fulfill requirements of Metal journal for scientific papers:

"The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the main conclusions. Keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper."

Materials and Methods:

You have presented the chemical composition of used materials. Have you prepared analysis of its composition or you presented values from standards The chemical composition should be llisted in the table. - How many specimens have you prepared? Any parmeters? How many were tested in each test?

Results and Discussion:

This is the only part of your paper that looks similar to scientific paper. However, the discussion of presented results in very short and have to be extended.

Conclusion:

You should list the main points of your conclusion

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made some changes, but the paper still needs to be improved:
- Figure 2 initially presented in the paper no longer exist?
- The roughness of the brazed surfaces is not specified but only papers up to 800 grit;
- Figures 1-5 have an inadequate resolution;
- the novelty brought by the research cannot yet be clearly identified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank for your revision, your work is appropriate. However, In my opinion, the manuscript still needs important improvements.

Introduction:
In my opinion this part does not suitable for scientific paper, and you have to rebuild it.

Eg.

line 29 - "Similar/dissimilar joining of Ti and its alloys has been widely evaluated in literatures for different industrial applications" - what does it mean "different industrial applictions" - Please write straight information in this field. line 31 - "For certain applications such as manufacturing of heat exchanger and dissimilar joining, brazing is more appropriate than welding" - Why? Please write the reason. line 33 - "It is required that the brazed joint exhibit acceptable bonding strength as well as corrosion resistance" - What does it mean "acceptable bonding strength"? What are the deference in strength of joints made by two processes? The same in line 37 "satisfactory joint strengths".

Materials and methods:
Results:
Conclusions:

This sections have been improved a lot and now they are suitable for scientific paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

You have done really good work. Your manuscript in previous version should be rejected because it was not suitable as a scientific paper. After two rounds of revision the paper improved A LOT. Congratulations.

I propose to publish text in this state.

Back to TopTop