Improving the Efficiency of Metalworking by the Cutting Tool Rake Surface Texturing and Using the Wear Predictive Evaluation Method on the Case of Turning an Iron–Nickel Alloy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author(s), the manuscript titled ‘Improving the Efficiency of Metalworking by the Cutting Tool Rake Surface Texturing and Using the Wear Predictive Evaluation Method on the Case of Turning an Iron-nickel Alloy’, Manuscript ID: coatings-2053651, has some weaknesses that must be significantly improved before any further actions in the processing, if allowed by the editor.

Please refer to the comments below:

1.      From the whole ‘Abstract’ section it is difficult to follow what is the main novelty and, respectively, proposals on the studies provided. ‘The increase of the efficiency of turning a hard-to-process iron-nickel alloy’ is not precise, what was proposed. It should be, even briefly indicated in this section.

2.      The “introduction’ section seems to be interesting, nevertheless is long and the reader is difficult to follow what exactly are the authors trying to convey. The most important studies presented previously on the current topic must be highlighted. From the whole section, it is difficult to provide one main goal of the analysis included, as in the previous, first comment.

3.      The final part of the ‘Introduction’ section, lines 137-152, should be re-written. The main lack of the current state of knowledge must be highlighted. Missing studies on the selected type of surface are not sufficient.

4.      Section 2.2., titled ‘Microstructure application’, is extremely long. I still can’t find the main motivation for the work. The author (s) should be focused on the material analysed. This section looks like a further part of the ‘introduction’, which is very long as well. Only lines 276-281 respond to some motivation, however, is not convincing.

5.      It was not specified if all of the equations, from (1) to (25), were newly proposed by the author(s) or previously published. I suppose that these are general formulas so, respectively, the primary sources should be referenced. If some modifications were proposed by the author(s) and, correspondingly, it could be classified as a novelty, it must be highlighted.

6.      Considering the whole of section 3, corresponding to the results, there should be presented, e.g. by the diagram of the process(es), including the whole actions. In some cases, looking for the length of the manuscript, the author feels lost. The draft is strongly required. In its current form, at some points, the article looks like a patchwork of different studies.

7.      Are all of the tables required? I feel that some of them could be removed or, respectively, some combined with others, presenting them on the whole width of the page, that half of them would be removed.

8.      There are many variables in the text, respectively, additional section, e.g. parameters, shortcuts or abbreviations, should be proposed.

9.      The ‘Conclusion’ section should be more precise. There is much general information. Moreover, this section should be divided into separate, numbered gaps.

10.  In the ‘Conclusion’ section, one, general, the main purpose of the paper should be added to emphasize the motivation of the work, which is difficult to be defined after the whole manuscript reading.

11.  All of the references must be formatted according to the journal template requirements.

12.  The DOI links should be added to the references, if exist.

Generally, the proposed manuscript is interesting but, respectively, must be improved significantly which includes many weaknesses.

Some issues make understanding the paper difficult and the reader confused.

Therefore, the manuscript should be improved in a required manner before any further processing for publication in a quality journal as the Coatings is, if allowed.

Author Response

see file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

1.        The paper is too long. In introduction part, there is no need to give details of every reference. In Materials and Methods part, the references should be deleted, the manuscript should focus on the experimental methods used in this study. In conclusion part, the conclusions should be simplified.

2.        The manuscript writing format should be improved. There is only one sentence in some paragraphs. The paragraphs should be merged in one paragraph.

3.        Please give more details of coating preparation methods. Where is the coating in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7.

4.        The red line in Fig. 16 should be changed to dotted line.

Author Response

see file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author(s), the manuscript ‘Improving the Efficiency of Metalworking by the Cutting Tool Rake Surface Texturing and Using the Wear Predictive Evaluation Method on the Case of Turning an Iron-nickel Alloy’, Manuscript ID: coatings-2053651, has not been improved significantly so, respectively, still have some strong weaknesses that make it impossible to be accepted.

I found it, especially, not expressed appropriately by the author(s). Responses were presented only in a slight manner. The Paper is still complicated and, unfortunately, confusing.

In many cases, readers, even regular or not, may have some serious problems in understanding what exactly the author(s) are trying to convey.

The DOI links, even are not required by the journal templates, are used for better and faster responses by the reviewers.

The nightmare comes from the ‘Conclusion’ section that still, even urgently required in the previous review, is weak and not responds to the novelty proposed.

From all of the above matters, I do not recommend the manuscript to be published in a quality journal as the Coatings is.

Author Response

see file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been revised according to my comments. It can be published now.

Author Response

Thank you for your work

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author(s), the manuscript ‘Improving the Efficiency of Metalworking by the Cutting Tool Rake Surface Texturing and Using the Wear Predictive Evaluation Method on the Case of Turning an Iron-nickel Alloy’, Manuscript ID: coatings-2053651, has been improved significantly so, respectively, can be further processed by the Coatings journal.

Firstly, the manuscript has many weaknesses, respectively, many issues were raised, nevertheless, currently, it was improved in the required manner.

From that matter, I recommend the manuscript (Manuscript ID: coatings-2053651), in its current, secondly-revised form, to be published in the Coatings journal.