Resistance of Graphene/Epoxy Resin—Based Composite Materials to γ Radiation Damage and Their Mechanical Properties
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, this paper present good finding that is worth for publication, however, certain improvement is deemed necessary.
Abstract:
The objective of the study should be clearly stated by mentioning the specific parameter to be measured for this study. Then, the results should be more detailed on the main objective of the study. Numerical data for radiation resistance for both Graphene oxide (GO) and Hummers' method reduced graphene oxide (Hh−RGO) should be visible in the abstract, followed by the mechanical and thermal properties of the sample. Overall conclusion should be highlighted at the end of the abstract.
Introduction provided is quite comprehensive and research gap were mentioned.
Methodology:
Please ensure all equipment used were provided with model, brand, and country of origin.
Results and discussion:
Good discussion were provided, but, lacking of intext citation to support the argument provided. Please add more reference to support the argument made on the discussion.
Conclusion should be simplified so that the reader can directly found the information on the conclusion and finding of the study. Discussion/explanation on the trend of the findings should be omitted from the conclusion.
Only minor editing is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors are advised to address the following points to improve the quality of the article.
· “Graphene oxide (GO) and Hummers' method reduced graphene oxide (Hh−RGO) are used to enhance epoxy resin (EP) composites in order to improve their radiation resistance.” To enhance what? Mention the same properly.
· Emphasize how the study addressed a particular issue or filled a knowledge gap.
· If possible, draw the flow chart for the methodology used in the article. Which will be beneficial for the readers.
· In Equation 4 - Mention What “S” represents. Also, Mention “β” is a constant related to the indenter geometry. It will help the readers.
· Add the Specimens’ pictures of composites before and after γ radiation.
· Both subheadings 3.1 and 3.2 are named as Microstructure. Kindly rectify the same.
· As the authors discussed on Microstructure, it is advised to add the SEM images. Which will improve the quality of the article.
· “of the pure epoxy resin composite” Pure Epoxy Resin can’t be called a Composite. Correct the same in the entire manuscript.
· “The addition of GO and Hh−RGO enhances the hardness of the epoxy resin−based composites.” Give the reason for the same.
· In the results, the author(s) is expected to try as much as possible to compare their results obtained with the existing or similar studies.
· Kindly reconcile the conclusion with the study objectives.
· What are the practical implications of this study and the future directions? Kindly state?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The topic of the article seems to be interesting and up-to-date, however, some incorrectness was observed in the paper which needs to be corrected and the paper itself looks more like a research report than a scientific paper.
Part 2: Experimental Materials and Methods could be supplemented with a graphic section, as it seems rather empty.
The text from line 196 onwards is in a smaller font.
Line 199/200, 290 - do not separate value and unit.
I think the manuscript lacks a "Discussion" section where the authors could compare the results obtained with those presented in related publications.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all the queries. The article may be accepted in its present form.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for your responses to all the comments. The manuscript looks much better in this form.
