Next Article in Journal
A Pulse-Multiplication Proposal for MIRACLES, the Neutron TOF-Backscattering Instrument at the European Spallation Source
Next Article in Special Issue
Self-Organized Nanostructures Generated on Metal Surfaces under Electron Irradiation
Previous Article in Journal
Making Light Work of Metal Bending: Laser Forming in Rapid Prototyping
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comprehensive Understanding of Hillocks and Ion Tracks in Ceramics Irradiated with Swift Heavy Ions
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Irradiation Hardening Behavior of He-Irradiated V–Cr–Ti Alloys with Low Ti Addition

Quantum Beam Sci. 2021, 5(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/qubs5010001
by Ken-ichi Fukumoto 1,*, Yoshiki Kitamura 1, Shuichiro Miura 1, Kouji Fujita 1, Ryoya Ishigami 2 and Takuya Nagasaka 3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Quantum Beam Sci. 2021, 5(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/qubs5010001
Submission received: 29 November 2020 / Revised: 28 December 2020 / Accepted: 29 December 2020 / Published: 31 December 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

minor revision requested, see attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Table 1:  its presence should be commented more. "Chemical analyses" are mentioned .... which ones?

Figs 2 and 3 seem overly repetitive and should be merged and made clear.

In line 117 you state: "This result indicates that damage microstructures thatformed at 700 ° C irradiation may be coarser than those formed at 500 ° C irradiation". Could you provide a bibliographic reference to better explain why?

Figs. 5 and 6 appear to be repetitive and are poorly scaled.

Line 161: Suddenly a grain boundary is mentioned which is present in the last Figure. Where does this grain boundary arise and what does it represent?

In Fig. 7 the analyzes with diffraction vectors are mentioned. However, these analyzes are not commented on and interpreted. They deserve further study and commentary in the text. Furthermore, the organization of Figure 7 itself as a whole appears deficient and should be reassembled in a more organic and elegant way. In general, Figure 7 is not commented at all as it deserves and some parts are totally left out in the discussion. Such discussions should contribute to the final conclusions, within which they are missing. The conclusions themselves therefore seem weak.

This article deserves careful further attention and should be implemented and modified.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Page 76-83: please check the english because there must be some mistake which makes the sentence incomprehensible.

132: i suggest to switch "it has reported" with "it has been reported"

143: do not repeat "because", use a synonim.

160-167: check the english!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop