Solution Deposition Planarization as an Alternative to Electro-Mechanical Polishing for HTS Coated-Conducters
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review paper offers an overview of various oxide materials used in the context of SDP for HTS-CC, It primarily focuses on Y2O3-based and Gd-Zr-O oxides.
1. Other oxide materials should be explored for SDP applications, like perovskite oxides, rare-earth oxides etc..
2. Lattice match, thermal expansion coefficient etc. should be considered while selecting an oxide material for SDP.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review article is comprehensive and reviews the SDP method to get a smooth surface above the metallic flexible substrates based on the oxide planarization layer. It is scientific soundness and will be interesting to the audience for our Journal “Coatings”. Before it can be published, there are some tiny things we need to modify. My suggestions are as follows:
1. Page 2, line 53
Since you mentioned CSD in Fig 1, the author needs to add (CSD) behind chemical solution deposition.
In other words, “in which … chemical solution deposition (CSD)…”
2. As a review paper, in the background part, try to add your reference paper after each point of view. For example: In the general considerations part, the author needs to add reference numbers in the following sentences to make the sentence you give more convincing and more convenient for the audience to reach the citation papers you mentioned:
(1) Page 2, line 76
(In the referenced papers), which referenced papers
(2) Page 2, line78
Some works …? Which work？
(3) Page 3, line 100 -101
Give at least one reference paper for Y2O3-Al2O3 and Al2O3, although you will do a review later based on the native oxide layer classification.
(4) Coating technique: page 3, line 109…
Several works are ….? Which works? Try to add the references here
There are several other places in this paper that need to be modified as above, I cannot point everything out, so please modify.
As for the contents for each literature section, I believe, the information is educative enough.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors presented a review manuscript entitled “Solution Deposition Planarization as an Alternative to Electro-Mechanical Polishing for HTS Coated-Conductors”. The manuscript explores Solution Deposition Planarization as a viable alternative to electro-mechanical polishing for HTS coated-conductors. The content is detailed, and the authors provide extensive literature references, experimental results, and a comparative analysis of planarization methods. While the paper holds substantial merit, a major revision is recommended for journal publication. The following are detailed comments, focusing on structural issues, clarity, technical precision and areas for improvement.
1. The abstract is clear but overly descriptive with redundant phrases. Clearly state the research novelty in the first 2 sentences. Avoid repetitive mentions of “reducing roughness” and “efficiency.” Provide key quantitative results succinctly. Example Rewrite:
“This review examines Solution Deposition Planarization (SDP) as a cost-effective alternative to traditional electro-mechanical polishing for HTS coated conductors. SDP achieves surface roughness levels below 1 nm through multiple oxide layer coatings, offering reduced production costs. Comparative studies demonstrate planarization efficiencies of up to 20%.”
2. Clearly state the gap in existing methods (e.g., electro-mechanical polishing limitations). Remove redundancy when describing IBAD-MgO and oxide layers. Simplify the explanation of the multi-layered HTS architecture.
3. Add a flowchart summarizing the SDP process for clarity. Clearly differentiate between MOD and Colloidal deposition methods with a table.
4. The manuscript presents a comprehensive review of literature data, including substrate comparisons, oxide coating efficiency, and thermal treatment parameters.
5. Consolidate redundant results across paragraphs (e.g., repeated mentions of “Rrms < 1 nm” and “planarization efficiency”). Provide critical comparisons between SDP and traditional methods beyond cost reduction—e.g., energy efficiency and environmental impact.
6. Interpret inconsistencies in reported efficiencies (e.g., 3–24%) and suggest reasons for variability (e.g., substrate roughness, deposition method).
7. Highlight the industrial feasibility of colloidal SDP techniques, particularly in long-length coated conductors.
8. The conclusion restates results without offering actionable insights. Provide specific recommendations for future research (e.g., “Explore low-viscosity additives to increase single-coat efficiency”).
9. Summarize SDP’s industrial relevance and cost benefits compared to conventional methods.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccepted for the publication.
