Improvements in the Surface Integrity and Operating Behaviour of Metal Components Through Slide Burnishing with Non-Diamond-Based Deforming Elements: Review and Perspectives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The article clearly elaborates on the intrinsic logic of how Slide Burnishing (SB) improves component performance (fatigue, wear, corrosion) by enhancing Surface Integrity (SI). However, the review lacks a high-level, overarching conceptual framework diagram to visually illustrate this core relationship chain and the role of different SB process categories (e.g., conventional, sustainable, special, hybrid) within this chain.
2. Lines 50-57: The classification of Surface Engineering techniques here (chemical modification, adding coatings, cold working) is somewhat fundamental and does not reflect modern developments in the field. It is recommended to briefly mention emerging techniques, such as laser surface treatment or other high-energy beam surface modification technologies, to construct a more comprehensive and contemporary technological landscape. This would better highlight the specific focus and value of this review on "mechanical cold working."
3. Line 120: The conclusion starting with "Therefore, the theoretical roughness values..." presents a logical leap from the preceding reasoning. The preceding text explains various random factors causing non-constant depth of penetration and material side flow, but it does not explicitly clarify why these factors necessarily lead to the theoretical formulas being suitable only for "qualitative comparison."
4. In Figure 2, the label "flat surface" is unclear. It is recommended to add arrows indicating the machined surface. Furthermore, the font formatting used for labels needs to be standardized.
5. Line 313: The statement "Cryogenic SB introduces positive surface hoop residual stresses..." is highly ambiguous and potentially misleading. It is also recommended to provide a clearer explanation of the mechanism behind this phenomenon.
6. Page 13: The discussion regarding whether MQL-assisted SB qualifies as a sustainable process is valuable. It is recommended to further clarify its positioning within the sustainability context in the Conclusions section.
7. In the legend of Figure 11, the entry "cool + MQL" uses "cool" in lowercase. As "Cool" represents a specific process condition name here, its first letter should be capitalized "Cool + MQL"to maintain formatting consistency with other entries like "Dry" and "MQL".
8. Section "Conclusions and perspectives": This section excellently outlines detailed future research directions and is comprehensive and forward-looking. However, structurally, it begins directly with the list of perspectives, lacking a summarizing paragraph that encapsulates the most critical findings and the current state of the field regarding non-diamond based SB as revealed by the review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This comprehensive review systematically examines slide burnishing (SB) processes utilizing non-diamond deforming elements, focusing on their effects on surface integrity (roughness, microhardness, residual stresses) and operational behavior (fatigue, wear, corrosion) of metal components. The authors propose a novel classification of SB processes conventional, sustainable, MQL-assisted, special, hybrid, and combined and critically analyze their characteristics and outcomes. Before publication, the following issues need to be addressed:

1. While an abbreviations table is provided at the end, it would be beneficial for reader comprehension to define all key abbreviations upon their first use in the main text.
2. The review presents instances where SB under different conditions leads to opposing trends. A more in-depth discussion analyzing the underlying mechanisms (thermal softening vs. strain hardening dominance, role of tangential force) behind these conflicting results would significantly strengthen the critical analysis.
3. The FEA section (Section 9) is a strength. It could be further enhanced by adding a brief summary sentence at the end of Tables 7 and 8, explicitly stating the most common simplifications and their potential impacts on model accuracy, based on the compiled data.
4. Section 6 is heavily weighted towards the authors' own developed methods. While these are valuable contributions, the section title ("Special SB processes") suggests a broader scope. Consider slightly reframing the section introduction to acknowledge this focus or ensure other significant special methods from different research groups are given proportionate emphasis.
5. A careful proofread is recommended to correct minor grammatical errors and improve sentence flow in several places. For instance, in the abstract, "and assisting and their main effects" could be rephrased for clarity, and in Section 4.1, "The following conclusions can be drawn are very similar..." is awkwardly constructed.
6. The introduction part of the article does not discuss the current research status in detail enough, and it lacks the discussion on the influence of pitting on the fatigue life of materials ： Field testing, analytical, and numerical assessments on the fatigue reliability on bridge suspender by considering the coupling effect of multiple pits；2. Fatigue behavior of high-strength steel wires considering coupled effect of multiple corrosion-pitting.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Accept in present form