Implementation of an Academic Learning Module for CNC Manufacturing Technology of the Part ”Double Fixing Fork”
, Florin-Ioan Moroșanu 2, Florin Susac 1,2, Virgil-Gabriel Teodor 1,2, Viorel Păunoiu 1,2 and Nicuşor Baroiu 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe chosen topic of the study, namely Implementation of an academic learning module for CNC manufacturing technology of the part ”Double fixing fork” is relevant especially in the last 10 years, when the volume of CNC machines at enterprises has amounted to more than 50% of the total volume of equipment. This industry is developing rapidly, which is also emphasized by the active development of 3D printers, which are also based on the principle of CNC and in the near future all workshops will be equipped with CNC machines and robotic complexes.
The work contains high-quality theoretical research, which is confirmed by the fact that an analysis of the processed surfaces and their types has been performed, as well as cutting modes have been calculated for each surface and fragments of control programs have been given, which clearly demonstrates the research process and allows you to check the reliability of the program code. There are also a large number of illustrations and illustrative diagrams and tables.
The work clearly traces the structure and logic of the study. The literature review was performed qualitatively and highlighted the essence of the problem that has not been solved at the moment, namely the insufficient integration of CNC machine tool programming into the educational process, as well as the lack of methodologies.
The research methodology is built correctly and correctly. I have no comments on this section. It is worth noting that in the process of research and analysis, the main types of surface treatment of machine parts were considered, namely drilling, milling, boring and thread cutting with calculations of cutting modes.
The references in the work fully correspond to its content and are made correctly in compliance with the rules of the scientific community and integrity. It is worth noting that all of them are not older than 10 years, which is good, because this industry is rapidly developing.
However, as a result of the review, I have some comments, namely:
- it may be correct to highlight the conclusions separately from the Discussion section, which will be the logical conclusion of any study.
- some of the keywords repeat words in the topic, and according to the requirements for scientific articles, this should not be the case. The following words should be replaced: manufacturing technology; learning module.
- the drawing of the part (Fig. 2) does not indicate the roughness of the M6 threaded holes, keyways and holes with a diameter of 5 mm.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review the manuscript. We appreciate your insights and recommendations, which have been instrumental in improving the quality of our work. Please find attached our detailed responses to each of your comments.
Kind regards,
The authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter reviewing the article, I suggest the author make some additions.
- The layout of the paper needs to be reorganized.
- The abstract is too extensive. The description of the CNC method is known. Please indicate the need for research and the results in the abstract.
- This will certainly facilitate students' work, but how can this be translated into industrial production?
This is not an academic work, but a scientific one. Please explain and prove this.
- There is no section devoted to research results and outcomes.
- The description of the research method is understandable, but too extensive. The description of the main program, Table 12, is unnecessary and only increases the number of pages.
- Please add a precise table showing the ranges of possible processing, but in context with the material (its capabilities and limitations): these elements should appear.
- Please decide which photos should be retained (either 3D or a schematic of technical drawings: I suggest the latter).
- The conclusions contain no information about the goals achieved in relation to current literature research. Please also mention the limitations that occur during CNC machining.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review the manuscript. We appreciate your insights and recommendations, which have been instrumental in improving the quality of our work. Please find attached our detailed responses to each of your comments.
Kind regards,
The authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMost of the comments have been addressed and improved. I still suggest removing a few photos; the technical specifications also support this.
