Insights on Niobium Micro-Alloyed Laser In Situ Synthesised Gamma Titanium Aluminide Alloys
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article presents researches concerning triple alloysTi-Al-Nb. It would be useful to add links to new investigating of these alloys, for example :
D.V. Lazurenko, I.S. Laptev, M.G. Golkovsky, A. Stark, J. Paul, I. Bataev, A.A. Ruktuev, L. Song, C. Gollwitzer, F. Pyczak Influence of the Ti/Al/Nb ratio on the structure and properties on intermetallic layers obtained on titanium by non-vacuum electron beam cladding
Mater. Charact., 163 (2020), Article 110246, 10.1016/j.matchar.2020.110246
C. Liang, J. Zhao, J. Chang, H. Wang Microstructure evolution and nano-hardness modulation of rapidly solidified Ti–Al–Nb alloy J. Alloys Compd., 836 (2020), Article 155538 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2020.155538Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for this review report. In review you suggested that we should add newer articles to our list of references. After a careful consideration and reading the suggested articles, we think they would be suitable in our future journal when we considered writing on the applications of the alloys we have produced. The paper by Liang et al (2020) elucidated on the microstructures and phase formation of lower aluminum alloys and we studied the gamma phases, and this is the mismatch hence it was not considered.
Many thanks again for these recommendations.
Reviewer 2 Report
The study was carried out at a fairly high level. Quite significant results have been obtained. It would be good to make some changes to improve the quality of the article.
In the Introduction, the first page of yours is devoted mainly to general issues and the advantages of the installation used. It should be shortened. The description and advantages of the installation used should be moved to the Materials and Methods section. Since you are doing the study when printing Ti-Al, pay more attention to the alloy structure and phase composition in the Introduction.
In the Sample preparation and analyses section, please specify how the samples were separated from the substrate and what part of them (surface) was used to study the microstructure.
On lines 240-250 and 267-285, you describe other studies' results. This part is better to move to the Introduction. In this section, it is better to make short links to the other results, explaining your own.
You used Nb content ~6%, 8%, and 10%. Why exactly such contents and why did not take 2, 4, or 15%? It would be good to have an explanation in the Materials and Methods section.
The quality of Figures 3, 5, and 6 should be improved. In Figure 4, the numbers are shown upside down, you should turn the picture over.
In Figure 5 you compare the structures of the samples before heat treatment. It would be nice to have all 4 photos of the microstructure side by side. The quality of pictures of these microstructures should also be improved (Figures 11, 12).
In Outlook: the benefit to additive manufacturing section, you also provide a lot of general information that was relevant to the Review. In your case, it would be better to focus on your results, and perhaps compare them with the studies of other authors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
The author's rebuttal is submitted as an attachment. Many thanks. Your comments have contributed largely to the improvements of our article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
In the article, the authors studied the characterization of niobium micro-alloyed laser in situ synthesized 2 gamma titanium aluminide alloys. The work contains high novelyt. I recommend publishing the article after minor revision. Doing the following items will further strengthen the article.
1- 3D metal additive subject should be added to more detailed introduction.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-023-00398-8
2- After Line 133, a paragraph about mentioning the importance of the element Nb can be added.
You can use the article below.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-022-07768-3
3- The texts in Figure 3 should be made clear.
4- The peaks on Figure 9 should be named.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your comments to our paper, we hope the rebuttal as attached will be suitable.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Please find the attachment
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please accept the attached rebuttal for your considerations. Thank you for the comments made to improve our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, the authors responded to my comments. But the answer to remark 2 should have been given in the text of the article, and not in the answer to the reviewer. It's about "Response: The samples were not separated from the substrate. The built itself was used to study the microstructures after grinding and polishing. The mirror finish surface of the sample was used"
Also still poor quality of figures 3-5. Maybe it's a PDF conversion.
It would be good to end the Introduction section with the purpose of the work or with the phrase "Based on this, work in the direction of ... is important."
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The reviews were received and have been looked into and incorporated in our revised manuscript.
Many thanks,
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
