Design Methodology and Application of Surface Texture: A Review
, Qiang Ma 1,2, Qi Liu 1,2, Fagla Jules Mawignon 1,2, Faisal Rafique 2,3 and Guangneng Dong 1,2,*
Mehdi Shakourian-Fard
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper reports an interesting and very useful review, well structured in the manuscript. The manuscript has some weaknesses. Mentioned below aspects have to be taken into consideration during the revision:
Introduction:
(1) Literature analysis should be expanded. Works dealing with this issue have been published, especially in Coatings journal;
(2) There must be included who did what and what they found;
Figures:
(3) About Figures 3, 7:
Is it possible to get better quality for these figures (badly cropped images, etc.)?
(4) The Authors need to describe well if the Figures are borrowed from other works.
(5) It is best to present the borrowed results on your own charts and make them uniform for the entire paper.
Conclusion:
(6) The conclusions should be in a quantified form.
References:
Referee propose to add a few entries in the Introduction section regarding the surface topography parameters [1,2].
[1] Todhunter LD, Leach RK, Lawes SDA, Blateyron F. Industrial survey of ISO surface texture parameters. CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 2017;19:84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CIRPJ.2017.06.001.
[2] Macek W. Fracture surface formation of notched 2017A-T4 aluminium alloy under bending fatigue. International Journal of Fracture 2021 2021:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10704-021-00579-Y.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper reviews the design methodologies and applications on surface texture, emphasizing on the proper selection of appropriate laser parameters and ambient conditions for the best texture quality and functionality. This review will play an important role in the follow-up research on laser surface texture. The language of the review is weak and should be improved. Many sentences are long and should be short. Please read the manuscript carefully and address the grammatical errors. The manuscript is publishable after the below mentioned questions/comments are addressed. I recommend "accept after major revision".
Comments:
Page 4, line 126: “ultra-short” → “Ultra-short”
Page 5, Line 184: “in Fig. 3 b The HAZ” → “In Fig. 3 b, the HAZ”
Page 5, Line 204: the following sentence should be corrected “Fig. 3 c and Fig. 3 d, an intriguing morphological divergence in the SEM images is shown.”→ “An intriguing morphological divergence in the SEM images is shown in Fig. 3 c and Fig. 3 d. ”
Page 10, Line 237: COF→ “Coefficient of friction (COF)
Page 10, Line 239: Some research work→ “Some research works”
Page 10, Line 240: In Section 3 we are going to discussed about→ “In Section 3, we are going to discuss about”
Page 10, Line 253: The sentence “Whereas grooves exhibited little advantageous or negative effect [52].” is incomplete.
Page 10, line 260: “groove, can lead”→” groove can lead”
Page 10, Line 262: “circular shape performs better than grooves in compressive lubricants.”→ “Circular shape performs better than grooves in compressive lubricants.”
Page 10, Line 277: “have been used”→” has been used”
Page 11, Line 310: “Combination like”→”Combinations like”
Page 11, Line 311: “was”→”were”
Page 11, Line 312: “enhancing”→ “enhance”
Page 11, Line 326: “was proposed”→” were proposed”
Page 12, Line 346: “by Storing”→ “by storing”
Page 12, Line 378: “some previous research”→ “some previous researchs”
Page 18, Line 465: “Although the positive outcome of these methods” this sentence needs a verb.
Page 18, Line 474: “Processing underwater is superior to processing in the air”→ “Underwater processing is superior to in-air processing”
Page 18, Line 475: “As illustrated in Fig. 6 b metal melting and vaporization been restricted, particle redeposition is suspended.” The grammatical structure of this sentence is incorrect.
Page 18, Line 477: “In Fig. 6 d, the fluid that covers the irradiation point also refracts the laser beam, the focused spot diameter is somewhat larger with a lower density of laser intensity compared to that of air. Fig. 5, shows the processing set of water ablation including liquid layer, water droplet, and flowing water.” This sentence is not grammatically correct and is too long.
Page 20, Line 567: “Recently, Xing et al. [29]. Compared”→” Recently, Xing et al. [29] compared”
Page 30, Line 770: “groove surface texture”→ “Groove surface texture”
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors attempted to provide a revision manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. They also responded to all cases individually. Although not all of their answers were satisfactory, they are generally acceptable in the scoring.
