The Effect of Corrosion on Crude Oil Distillation Plants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors treated part of the introduction as a description of the research carried out. In my opinion, this part should be moved to the "Materials and methods" chapter.  The wording "Speed of corrosion" should be removed from the publication. It suggests that the corrosion rate may be vector in nature.

The publication is written very chaotically. The values that are calculated and presented in the tables are not defined (you can guess what it is about, but not all of the interests need to know what it is about).

Author Response

Dear Sir

I sent an updated version of my paper. In case to need to modify please contact me. 

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper proposes a new equation of corrosion process in columns oil refinery.

The structure and overall construction are insufficient to publish. Basic grammar of the manuscript is very poor. I want to reject the paper, but the corrosion issue handled by this paper is very important and interesting. So, I want to give the author to one more chance for revision. The comments are as follows.

1. Basic grammar was not observed everywhere in this paper. So it must be fixed. And there was no connection between the paragraphs, just listing them. These are areas of great concern.
2. There is no figure in this study. The figure is not a mandatory one. But it is crucial to improve the understandability of the paper. I would like to recommend the figure such as the main result or overview of the study.
3. Previous research survey is very weak. More literature studies are required in the Introduction as follows. They are all about the corrosion in refinery processes.

Author Response

Dear Sir

I sent an updated version of my paper. In case to need to modify please contact me. 

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the authors for their research work on the "New equation of corrosion process in columns oil refinery". However, the following are the major concerns that the authors should address before acceptance.

1. Review your text's structure, grammar, and punctuation, and then rewrite it again.
2. Revise the Abstracts with the key area of review.
3. The title should be modified as it does not sound scientific.
4. The introduction section should be ended with the aim of the current research work.
5. Authors are advised to modify the entire manuscript. It is hard to understand why the authors made so many subparagraphs.
6. Add some more references to validate your approach.
7. Author can add the social and economic impact of corrosion in the oil and gas industries.
8. The discussion and conclusion parts are not enough to understand the current research approach. Please add some deep discussion.

Author Response

Dear Sir

I sent an updated version of my paper. In case to need to modify please contact me. 

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would have dropped the "d" point from "Conclusions". Firstly, cathodic protection does not passivate the surface and it is a misinterpretation of the technical possibilities. The anode polarization is unlikely to work also under these operating conditions.

Author Response

Point 1: I would have dropped the "d" point from "Conclusions". Firstly, cathodic protection does not passivate the surface and it is a misinterpretation of the technical possibilities. The anode polarization is unlikely to work also under these operating conditions.

Response 1:

I've changed it. you're right. it's only used on underground pipelines.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I cannot find any changes that reflect my previous comments accordingly. Also, there are so many line changes in the manuscript. Line change means the change of the context of the paragraph. So, please reduce the line changes. And, previous review comments are attached as follows. At this time, I would like to reflect my opinion correctly.

1. Basic grammar was not observed everywhere in this paper. So it must be fixed. And there was no connection between the paragraphs, just listing them. These are areas of great concern.
2. There is no figure in this study. The figure is not a mandatory one. But it is crucial to improve the understandability of the paper. I would like to recommend the figure such as the main result or overview of the study.
3. Previous research survey is very weak. More literature studies are required in the Introduction as follows. They are all about the corrosion in refinery processes.

Author Response

I cannot find any changes that reflect my previous comments accordingly. Also, there are so many line changes in the manuscript. Line change means the change of the context of the paragraph. So, please reduce the line changes. And, previous review comments are attached as follows. At this time, I would like to reflect my opinion correctly.

1. Basic grammar was not observed everywhere in this paper. So it must be fixed. And there was no connection between the paragraphs, just listing them. These are areas of great concern.

Response 1:

I've changed it.

1. There is no figure in this study. The figure is not a mandatory one. But it is crucial to improve the understandability of the paper. I would like to recommend the figure such as the main result or overview of the study.

Response 2:

I've changed it.

1. Previous research survey is very weak. More literature studies are required in the Introduction as follows. They are all about the corrosion in refinery processes.

Response 3:

I've changed it.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept

Author Response

we modified.

Thank you for your information

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Ther are still several line changes. Should be corrected.