Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
Search
by
  • Maigul Mursalykova 1,
  • Mukhtarbek Kakimov 2 and
  • Anuarbek Suychinov 4,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Weifeng Wu Reviewer 2: Tao Wang Reviewer 3: Anonymous Reviewer 4: Abraham Kabutey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Egnlish should be improved.

2.is there experiments?

Author Response

The manuscript is corrected according to the comments of the reviewers.

  1. Materials and methods section is added, where main methods and equipment description are described
  2. Corrected the title of the article according to the reviewer's suggestion
  3. Added new data on studying cake density during pressing process
  4. Corrected figures.
  5. Added SI units to some formulas

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The paper is lack of theoretical innovation;

2. There are a lot of mistakes in English statements

3. Too little data to support the conclusion

 

 

 

 

Author Response

The manuscript is corrected according to the comments of the reviewers.

  1. Materials and methods section is added, where main methods and equipment description are described
  2. Corrected the title of the article according to the reviewer's suggestion
  3. Added new data on studying cake density during pressing process
  4. Corrected figures.
  5. Added SI units to some formulas

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper modeled the process of oil pressing in a screw press. The proposed method of the pressing process could effectively help to determine the optimal parameters and press safflower oil for screw press. Additionally, the paper is organized well, and the conclusion is stated clearly. This subject accords with the research scope of the journal applied science. Hence, I recommend this paper to be accepted after minor revision, as follows:

1.      The manuscripts should be written in good English and proofread carefully to ensure that research is communicated clearly. The figures should also be shown clearly.

2.      The originality of the paper needs to be stated clearly. It is of importance to show sufficient results to justify the novelty of the paper.

Author Response

The manuscript is corrected according to the comments of the reviewers.

  1. Materials and methods section is added, where main methods and equipment description are described
  2. Corrected the title of the article according to the reviewer's suggestion
  3. Added new data on studying cake density during pressing process
  4. Corrected figures.
  5. Added SI units to some formulas

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is within the scope of the journal. The authors reported the processing of safflower oil by describing mathematically the screw configuration and pressing cage. The English language is satisfactory, and readers will understand its content. However, the paper in its present form need to be improved to meet scientific merit as well as the Journal's impact and quality. The necessary comments are as follows:

General comment:

The manuscript is not scientifically organized. 

Specific comments:

1. Title: 'Mathematic' should be Mathematical. 

Suggestion: Mathematical modeling of the screw press configuration for processing safflower oil. 

2. Abstract: Ok

3. Introduction: Ok

4. Materials and Methods: This section is missing. Provide the section as 'Materials and Methods'. Describe all the necessary methods adopeted in this study. Lines 69 - 315 should be appropriately described in this section. 

5. Results and Discussion: This information is missing. Separate the information presented in Lines 69 - 315 from Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion.

Suggestion: Have separately the followings sections:

Materials and Methods

Results

Discussion

This will help readers understand information presented. 

Conclusions: Provide specific findings of the study. Add the value statement regarding future directions for further study(ies).

Acknowledgement: This is missing: Add that the study did not receive funding or did receive funding, and if so add the funding information. 

References: Refer to the Journal's instructions for authors to check whether the format/style is appropriately followed.

Others Comments:

(i) remove the border line from Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 5.

(ii) define appropriately the variables and their SI Units in equations 1 to 9 accordingly. 

(iii) if preliminary experiments were conducted, then describe appropriately the methods and the results. Suggestion: Provide this information as a Supplementary Material.

(iv) Please, why the study did include the statistical analyses of the input and output parameters to understand the statistical significance of the results presented?

(v) In Fig. 11, in lines 312-313, the highest oil yield can be seen at diaphragm gap 0.1 mm, instead of 0.3 mm as reported. The oil yield/content decreased with increasing diaphragm gaps. Note that 'oil yield' is different from 'oil content', so please maintain correct usage of the terms. Change oil content on y-axes to oil yield.

(vi) number all sections/headings in the study accordingly for clarity of information.

Author Response

The manuscript is corrected according to the comments of the reviewers.

  1. Materials and methods section is added, where main methods and equipment description are described
  2. Corrected the title of the article according to the reviewer's suggestion
  3. Added new data on studying cake density during pressing process
  4. Corrected figures.
  5. Added SI units to some formulas

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think sate of the manuscript is suitable for publication. please check the language and writing again.

Author Response

Revised and corrected

Reviewer 2 Report

accept

Author Response

Thanks

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript has been improved based on the comments raised during the first review. The revised version can only be accepted for further processing and publication after observing the following necessary comments for another revision:

1. In lines 118-119; specify the thickness interval or state all the specific values.

2. The term 'formula' should be 'equation'. Scientifically, equation is the correct word/term to use. Correct this throughout the manuscript.

3. From equations 5 to 13, please, remove the SI unit from the equations to ensure consistency of information. Provide all the SI units for the equations appropriately for clarity and understanding of the information presented to the readers. In lines 127-154, that is exactly how you should define all the other variables and their SI units in equations 5-13. 

4. In Figs. 5 and 12, ensure that the text format/style and font size of the axes and parameters are consistent with the main text. 

Author Response

All reviewer’s comments are corrected and in red

1. In lines 118-119; specify the thickness interval or state all the specific values. - CORRECTED (thickness of 0.6 mm)

2. The term 'formula' should be 'equation'. Scientifically, equation is the correct word/term to use. Correct this throughout the manuscript. - CORRECTED

3. From equations 5 to 13, please, remove the SI unit from the equations to ensure consistency of information. Provide all the SI units for the equations appropriately for clarity and understanding of the information presented to the readers. In lines 127-154, that is exactly how you should define all the other variables and their SI units in equations 5-13.  - CORRECTED

4. In Figs. 5 and 12, ensure that the text format/style and font size of the axes and parameters are consistent with the main text. - REVISED