Adhesion between Biocomposites and Different Metallic Structures Additive Manufactured

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewer has the following suggestions for the manuscript:

1. Authors should define SLM at the start, please check line 18 (SLM abv. used)
2. In section 2 (Line 110-114) has to be shifted to the introduction part, rather than in the Materials and method section.
3. "One hundred and sixty metallics" should be corrected to one hundred sixty.
4. The authors should discuss all the testing methods standards (line 173-180)
5. How the samples were prepared for SEM analysis? Please add few lines (190-193)
6. In the discussion part authors used too many references to justify their results.

Author Response

Thank you for your excellent question. All the comments were very useful and helped us to increase the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the paper and we have made the changes suggested by you. A detailed point by point responses is attached.

Hoping you will favorably reconsider this work for publication, we remain with very best regards.

Sincerely,

Marioara Moldovan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper concerns the investigations about the adhesion of different modified biocomposites surfaces. The article is very original and has a scientific overtone. The structure of the article is correct. The authors exhaustively describe the methodology, present research results and interpret the results. The performed statistical analysis confirms the credibility and repeatability of the conducted research. The conclusions were correctly formulated. I do not have any substantive comments, only I have reservations about the language. There are a few linguistic errors, the article should be checked by a native speaker.

Author Response

Thank you for your excellent comments. We have revised the paper and we have made some changes suggested by the others reviers. I revised the English language and made some corrections regarding the linguistic errors.

Hoping you will favorably reconsider this work for publication, we remain with very best regards.

Sincerely,

Marioara Moldovan

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find the attached report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your excellent question. All the comments were very useful and helped us to increase the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the paper and we have made the changes suggested by you. A detailed point by point responses is attached.

Hoping you will favorably reconsider this work for publication, we remain with very best regards.

Sincerely,

Marioara Moldovan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This study is very interesting and complete. However, there are minor flaws that should not exist in vitro studies of this nature and need to be corrected.

ABSTRACT

Authors should not use acronyms when the complete words have not yet been mentioned, for example: selective laser melting (SLM)

INTRODUCTION

Line 44 – the reference is missing

Line 55 – the reference is missing

The null hypothesis is missing

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Authors should clarify in the text the composition of the study groups and the control group (the n of the groups and what specimens).

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions must be shorter and more objective. Detailed considerations should already have been presented in the discussion

Author Response

Thank you for your excellent question. All the comments were very useful and helped us to increase the quality of the manuscript. We have revised the paper and we have made the changes suggested by you. A detailed point by point responses is attached.

Hoping you will favorably reconsider this work for publication, we remain with very best regards.

Sincerely,

Marioara Moldovan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript can be accepted in present form.

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. I revised the English language and made some corrections regarding the linguistic errors.
Hoping you will favorably reconsider this work for publication, we remain with very best regards.
Sincerely,
Marioara Moldovan

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised version is significantly improved. However, some minor point still need to be considered as follows:

1- It is recommended to add a table comparing the current study results to that were published in the literature studies(if exist) to validate the analysis and the trends concluded. 

2- The conclusion section should be arranged using the bullet points style for easy tracking the main results and contributions. 

Author Response

We have revised the paper and we have made the changes suggested by you. A detailed point by point responses is attached.

Hoping you will favorably reconsider this work for publication, we remain with very best regards.

Sincerely,

Marioara Moldovan

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf