Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Carbide Reinforced TiC-Based Ultra-High Temperature Ceramics: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This review work introduced the mechanism of the second phase on reinforced TiC ceramics. furthermore, this review comprehensively summarized the effects of the second phase on the microstructure, phase composition, and mechanical properties of TiC ceramics. this work also presented the current bottlenecks regarding TiC based composites and the perspectives for future works. however, there are a few technical issues the authors should pay attention to, i.e., in figure 3 no scale bar, and the cited figures should be permitted from the publisher, the captain of every figure is not clearly explained. i would like to suggest a minor revision to improve the present work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read your paper "Microstructure and mechanical properties of carbide reinforced TiC-based ultra-high temperature ceramics: A review" carefully.

Explanations are clear and the review is easy to read. 

However, it requires few corrections.

1. Has the PRISMA guidelines been followed?
2. Please add, the methodological sections in which it is described in detail how the review has been done.
3. How can the reader know if the review is a complete review?
4. The sections content includes group citations of articles. Especially in a review article, such groupings should be avoided. More details on the quoted papers should be provided.
5.  Please improve the conclusions, pointing out some possible trends in terms of evolution of process performance. Please add quantitative indicators.
6. Please, change Gpa to GPa.
7. Fig.13. Please, describe GNTs.
8. Please, give a reference to physical properties of the TiC.

The paper can be accepted for publication only after major improvements.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Please consider the suggested comments to improve the quality of the current version of the manuscript:

1. In the abstract, the synopsis of the review and the specific review point need to be addressed clearly. Also, the scope of the review needs to be established in detail. In the submitted manuscript the scope of the review is not clearly explained. Please confine the scope to a specific area and discuss/explain it.
2. The review criteria is also very important in a review paper. In the abstract of the manuscript, the review criteria is not specifically mentioned. In a review paper, the scope of review and the review criteria are very critical.
3. In the abstract please include the details of the contents and the specific points discussed in the review paper so that readers will have a clear understanding of the review paper. Providing the details of the contents of the review, in the abstract helps to provide necessary enthusiasm and interest to the readers and thus improve the number of full-text reads of the paper.
4. The abstract also needs to incorporate an appropriate conclusion and quick thought inputs. In the current version of the manuscript, though the conclusions are mentioned (lines 17 & 18) but not detailed properly. Please update the abstract with detailed scientific conclusions.
5. In the introduction of the manuscript, it is very important to explain the need for the review to be performed. In the current version of the manuscript, the need for this review is not clearly established. Please provide the justification of the review being performed in the manuscript as the topic of ‘Carbide reinforced TiC-based ultra-high temperature ceramics’ is widely studied over the last few years.
6. Please also include the knowledge gaps in the studies performed by the peer researchers and the other review papers in this field. Kindly address those knowledge gaps in the manuscript. Very importantly, please specify the need for the current review presented in the manuscript.
7. In the last paragraph of the introduction, include the details of the broader impacts on the study made, and address the future scope and topics that are important and could not be covered in this review.
8. In figure-1, please include the details of the chemical names to the chemical formula mentioned in the plot. Also, mention the appropriate references to those melting point values mentioned.
9. In section-2: figure-3, kindly incorporate the scale in the microscopic image to provide the reader a complete understanding of the morphologies of TiCx
10. Some of the references cited in the paper are not from recent years. Please include the studies performed and published more recently (preferably after 2018).
11. Please include the appropriate thought inputs and future prospects in the conclusions based on the review performed.
12. Please revise the manuscript with English grammar. There are a few places that the manuscript needs to be improved with respect to English writing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,
Thank you for updating the manuscript with recommended changes.