Microstructure, Mechanical Properties, Wear and Erosion Performance of a Novel High Entropy Nitride (AlCrTiMoV)N Coating Produced by Cathodic Arc Evaporation
Fehim Fındık
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The presented manuscript looks attractive for a targeting audience of the journal and it can be accepted for publication after the corrections listed in my review.
1. The values of elemental concentration should be kept in the table, however, it would be great to provide elemental mapping in elemental contrast on the wear tracks - it will increase the visibility of the obtained results.
2. I also propose adding elemental mapping in elemental contrast in Fig. 12. It will make it easier to understand what elements erode first.
3. Please, provide measurement errors whenever possible or, at least, discuss these errors within the text of the manuscript.
4. The review of recently published articles devoted to similar topics seems to be pretty good, however, it could be improved by [1 - 2]. Probably, the authors of the manuscript will find these 2 articles useful for their research as well as for their future investigations.
References
[1] ,
[2] ,
Author Response
Hello Reviewer,
Thank you for your feedback. Your suggestions have been addressed, please see attachement for comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Review for COATINGS-2249709
I have reviewed the paper of “Microstructure, Mechanical Properties, Wear and Erosion Per- 2 formance of a Novel High Entropy Nitride (AlCrTiMoV)N 3 Coating Produced by Cathodic Arc Evaporation” submitted for the possible publication in the Journal of Coatings. Despite written in a good way, the paper has some lack of points which need to be improved. My review report is shown below:
1. This paper is an original experimental work about the precipitation reactions in HA coated on different metal substrates at different temperature.
2. The aim of study is not clearly given at the end of the introduction. Therefore, the target of the study should be specified and extended at the end of the introduction part. Why this paper is written, what is the difference of the present submitted paper from the previous works? What is needed to for this paper? Explain all these questions at the end of the introduction part of the paper.
3. Extend the introduction with the suggested new references.
4. In Figure 4 and Figure 6a, the focus is not good in SEM and TEM micrographs respectively, therefore replace them with the better micrographs if possible.
5. Despite giving 39 references at the end of the paper, some references (ref. 32 and 38) are quite old (older than 1995). It is difficult to find such old references. Therefore, either delete or replace them with the recent references. Several recent papers are suggested to be cited below:
a. Altinkok N., Ozsert I., Findik F., "Dry sliding wear behavior of Al2O3/SiC particle reinforced aluminum based mmcs fabricated by stir casting method", Acta Physica Polonica A,Vol. 124 (1), pp. 11-19, 2013.
b. Dogan, H., Findik, F., Oztarhan, A., “Comparative study of wear mechanism of surface treated AISI 316L stainless steel”, Industrial Lubrication and Tribology, 55 (2-3): 76-83 2003.
c. Findik, Fehim. "Latest progress on tribological properties of industrial materials", Materials & Design, 57, 2014; 218-244.
6. The authors should discuss the results and compare the results with the previous studies and mention coherent/incoherent points with the possible reasons.
7. Finally, I believe the submitted paper can only be acceptable after the correcting and/or adding the required points above mentioned for the publication in the journal. I also believe that this paper might be beneficial for the academicians who are working in the specific area.
Author Response
Hello Reviewer,
Thank you for your feedback. Your suggestions have been addressed, please see attachement for comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
