Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In my opinion, the title is general and not highlight the author original contributions novelty. “Regulation Mechanism…” is vague and overclaimed. No clear novelty signal. Abstract reports results but does not state what is new. Introduction reviews literature but fails to explicitly define research gap. Methodology is standard LST + tribotest. No methodological novelty. My suggestion, Explicitly define novelty in 3 places: Last paragraph of Introduction, Abstract (1–2 sentences), Conclusion (first paragraph).

2. The manuscript suffers from weak structural alignment between the introduction, methodology, results, and conclusion. Research objectives are not explicitly stated at the end of the introduction, making it difficult to assess whether the study has achieved its intended goals. Furthermore, the Results and Discussion section is organized based on testing conditions rather than research objectives, resulting in fragmented analysis and repetition. The methodology is also not clearly linked to the study objectives. It is strongly recommended that the authors explicitly define 2–3 research objectives at the end of the introduction and restructure the Results and Discussion, as well as the Conclusion, to align directly with these objectives. This will significantly improve clarity, coherence, and scientific rigor.

Each objective must link directly to method.  Example alignment: Objective 1 → friction tests under 3 conditions, Objective 2 → 9 texture configurations (Table 1), Objective 3 → SEM + EDS analysis. 

Suggestion for subsection, to make it alligned with objective.
3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Effect of Texture Geometry (Objective 1)

• Compare circular, rectangular, hexagonal across all conditions

3.2 Effect of Texture Parameters (Objective 2)

• Size and density analysis

3.3 Wear Performance Analysis (Objective 2)

3.4 Mechanism Analysis (Objective 3)

3. The manuscript places key governing equations, such as the wear rate formulation, within the Results and Discussion section. For clarity and reproducibility, all equations used for data processing and analysis should be presented in the Methodology section, with the Results section limited to interpretation and discussion. The current structure disrupts logical flow and should be revised accordingly.

4. The manuscript claims a “mechanism”, but the analysis is only qualitative. Statements such as improved drainage or debris trapping are not supported by quantitative evidence. There is no contact mechanics, lubrication analysis, or use of dimensionless parameters. This makes the mechanistic interpretation weak. To improve and maintains the term mechanism, it need include basic contact mechanics. For example, you can include, estimation Hertzian contact pressure to show how textures reduce stress and contact area. Add lubrication regime discussion using the Stribeck concept. Use operating conditions to classify boundary, mixed, or hydrodynamic regimes. Also, explain debris behavior using geometry. Hexagonal textures can provide better flow paths and debris removal, while rectangular shapes may trap debris due to sharp corners. Even simple analytical reasoning will strengthen the mechanism significantly.

5. This manuscript language and grammar issues need to be fixed, it need proper proofreading. Frequent errors:

• “sTablele”, “weĴing”, “Figureure”, “Tablele”
• Typographical artifacts throughout manuscript

6. Units and formatting inconsistencies need to be check throughout the manuscript. What I found:

• Wear rate units inconsistent formatting:
  • mm³/(N·m)
  • spacing inconsistent
• Density:
  • 7.81 g/cm³ mixed with SI

7.  No discussion of laser parameters influence and key parameter of laser. Laser is central to study, but no parametric study and no energy density discussion.

8. No uncertainty analysis which is important to show that the data collected is accurate and the machine is fit to collect data.

9.  Weak conclusion section, which is mostly repeats results explanation. It does not re-emphasize novelty and not provide future work direction. A good conclusion need to be properly alligned with results, methodology, objectives in introductiona and abstract.

10. The whole structure is not well organized, as it looks like it is just copy from thesis into journal format.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This manuscript language and grammar issues need to be fixed, it need proper proofreading.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers, 
We greatly appreciate the valuable comments and constructive suggestions provided by Reviewer 1. Our point-by-point response to the comments can be found in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a relevant topic (laser micro-texturing of H62 brass under multi-condition tribology) and presents systematic experiments. However, methodological weaknesses, overinterpretation, and insufficient rigor limit its scientific contribution. Major revision is required.

 

1. Laser processing description is incomplete. Provide full laser parameters and quantitative texture characterization (depth, volume, roughness).
2. Include sufficient replicates and statistical analysis; otherwise, conclusions are not reliable.
3. Claims of “optimal” performance are not convincingly supported. Differences in friction (e.g., 0.44 vs 0.43) are marginal. Wear reductions are modest and inconsistent across conditions. Temper claims and distinguish clearly between statistically significant vs negligible differences.
4. Wear characterization approach is inadequate. Wear is evaluated primarily via mass loss of the counterbody (steel ball), not the brass. No direct volumetric wear measurement (profilometry) of textured surfaces.
5. There are numerous language issues and typographical errors.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers, 
We greatly appreciate the valuable comments and constructive suggestions provided by Reviewer 2. Our point-by-point response to the comments can be found in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Lack of statistical analysis

Although experiments are repeated three times, no statistical information is presented.

• No error bars in figures
• No standard deviation or confidence intervals
• No statistical significance testing

Given the small differences in friction coefficient, this is critical. In my opinion, at minimun, author need to clarify any study to show the machine is well calibrated and it is accurate enough to differentiate these small difference since all data show small difference.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This manuscript language and grammar issues need to be fixed, it need proper proofreading.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you! no further comments.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your time and for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We truly appreciate your positive feedback and the helpful suggestions.

We have carefully revised the manuscript to address the points you indicated could be improved, including the English language, introduction, conclusions, and presentation of figures and tables. Your input has helped us significantly enhance the quality of the paper.

We are very grateful for your thoughtful review and your kind note of “No further comments.” Thank you again for your support.