Advances in Texturing of Polycrystalline Diamond Tools in Cutting Hard-to-Cut Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a systematic summary of micro/nano-texturing technologies for PCD tools in machining hard-to-cut materials, containing substantial content. It can be considered for publication after minor revisions addressing the following points:
1.    The logical structure of the sections could be optimized. Currently, Sections 2.1 and 2.2 both discuss "the influence of texture orientation," while Section 2.3 covers "the influence of shape and profile." It is suggested to merge Sections 2.1 and 2.2 into a single section titled "Influence of Texture Orientation" to create a more unified and clearer sectional logic.
2.    Key terminology should be standardized. The manuscript uses several terms interchangeably for "micro-dents/pits," such as "micropits," "dimples," and "microholes." It is advised to standardize this terminology throughout the text to enhance academic precision.
3.    Updating and supplementing key recent literature is advised. As a review article, it would benefit from including references to representative, cutting-edge studies from the last 2-3 years (e.g., notable works from 2023-2024 on composite textures or multi-scale biomimetic textures). This would better substantiate the claim of presenting "Advances" and improve the article's timeliness. We suggest that the authors conduct more comparative analysis, such as by incorporating laser micro-nano processing technologies (Opto-Electronic Advances, 2025,8:240296.).
The manuscript demonstrates solid work, a clear focus, and possesses practical reference value. Addressing the points above regarding structure, wording, and references would further enhance its quality, making it suitable for publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear reviewer,

Thank you so much for your kind evaluation of our work. We agree with all your proposals and comments and have modified the manuscript accordingly.

We hope the manuscript will be suitable for publishing in Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing and attract many potential journal readers with your comments. The introduced corrections in the text of the manuscript are marked yellow.

 

Kind regards,

Authors.

Reviewer comments

Point 1: The logical structure of the sections could be optimized. Currently, Sections 2.1 and 2.2 both discuss "the influence of texture orientation," while Section 2.3 covers "the influence of shape and profile." It is suggested to merge Sections 2.1 and 2.2 into a single section titled "Influence of Texture Orientation" to create a more unified and clearer sectional logic.

Response 1: Thank you for your kind advice. We revised it as required.

Point 2: Key terminology should be standardized. The manuscript uses several terms interchangeably for "micro-dents/pits," such as "micropits," "dimples," and "microholes." It is advised to standardize this terminology throughout the text to enhance academic precision.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing it out. It is revised.

Point 3: Updating and supplementing key recent literature is advised. As a review article, it would benefit from including references to representative, cutting-edge studies from the last 2-3 years (e.g., notable works from 2023-2024 on composite textures or multi-scale biomimetic textures). This would better substantiate the claim of presenting "Advances" and improve the article's timeliness. We suggest that the authors conduct more comparative analysis, such as by incorporating laser micro-nano processing technologies (Opto-Electronic Advances, 2025,8:240296.).

Response 3: Thank you for your kind recommendation. The referenced item cannot be added due to ethical concerns. However, we have added the relevant information to the manuscript.

Point 4: The manuscript demonstrates solid work, a clear focus, and possesses practical reference value. Addressing the points above regarding structure, wording, and references would further enhance its quality, making it suitable for publication.

Response 4: Thank you once again for your kind evaluation of our review; we highly appreciate your recommendations for making it more attractive for the potential readers of the Journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is an exhaustive review of recent advances in micro-texturing and nano-texturing of PCD (polycrystalline diamond) tools for machining hard-to-cut materials such as Ti6Al4V, aluminum alloys, and SiCp/Al composites.
The authors discuss multiple texture-manufacturing techniques (nanosecond/femtosecond laser, EDM, ion beam, etc.), the resulting geometric parameters, and their influence on friction, wear, chip formation, and surface quality, as well as additional effects such as wettability (lyophobic treatments).

I must say that this is indeed a very good piece of work, but before publication the authors should consider the following comments:

• The review does not present a clear narrative thread: studies are listed one after another without developing overarching patterns, contradictions, or strong trends until the final section. The manuscript should be improved in this regard.
• In addition, the title promises “Advances,” yet much of the content is descriptive. A deeper critical analysis, cross-comparison, and conceptual synthesis are missing and it was expected.
• I see an excess of detailed laser-processing parameters, often repeated, which makes the text harder to follow and does not contribute to the main message. It would be helpful to summarize these parameters in a table to maintain continuity in the reading.
• Another aspect I noticed is that several methodological considerations are scarcely discussed, such as cost and industrial scalability or potential thermal degradation of PCD. Has nothing been found in this regard?
• The manuscript also does not analyze the effect of PCD quality (grain size, binder type, etc.), even though several cited studies use different grades.
• Regarding the bibliography, I observed that a significant portion of the references comes from the same group of authors, which could introduce bias. I also miss additional works from Fernández-Lucio, whose career is extensive in this research line. Furthermore, key publications on tribology and textured tools from major journals (CIRP Annals, Wear, Tribology International, etc.) are lacking.

I must say that the article contains a great amount of useful information and it has been a pleasure to review it. However, it still needs a more analytical reorganization, avoidance of repeated experimental descriptions, and improved internal coherence before publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear reviewer,

Thank you so much for your kind evaluation of our work. We agree with all your proposals and comments and have modified the manuscript accordingly.

We hope the manuscript will be suitable for publishing in Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing and attract many potential journal readers with your comments. The introduced corrections in the text of the manuscript are marked green.

 

Kind regards,

Authors.

Reviewer comments

Point 1: The review does not present a clear narrative thread: studies are listed one after another without developing overarching patterns, contradictions, or strong trends until the final section. The manuscript should be improved in this regard.

Response 1: Thank you for your kind evaluation. The schematic of the review structure is added in the Introduction.

Point 2: In addition, the title promises “Advances,” yet much of the content is descriptive. A deeper critical analysis, cross-comparison, and conceptual synthesis are missing and it was expected.

Response 2: We are grateful for your proposal. We have tried to improve it in the manuscript.

Point 3: I see an excess of detailed laser-processing parameters, often repeated, which makes the text harder to follow and does not contribute to the main message. It would be helpful to summarize these parameters in a table to maintain continuity in the reading.

Response 3: Thank you for your kind remark; the tables are added.

Point 4: Another aspect I noticed is that several methodological considerations are scarcely discussed, such as cost and industrial scalability or potential thermal degradation of PCD. Has nothing been found in this regard?

Response 4: We appreciate your proposal. The relevant paragraphs are added.

Point 5: The manuscript also does not analyze the effect of PCD quality (grain size, binder type, etc.), even though several cited studies use different grades.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing it out. We did not include this factor in our review and focused more on the topic of microtexturing of the PCD tool. We would like to note that this topic was already touched on by our research group in a publication:

[1] Hamdy K, Okunkova AA, Volosova MA, Ali S, Ibrahim AMM, Lee H-P, Grigoriev SN, Chipping Size in Si and SiC Wafers Dicing with a Diamond Saw Blade – A Review, Journal of Materials Research and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2025.10.134.

However, the research subject of this paper is particularly the PCD saw blade for dicing semiconductors (die singulation). The current manuscript is already quite long (29 pages), and we are concerned that introducing the subject of PCD tool factors could make it even more complicated to understand and longer, thereby reducing the article’s readability. Moreover, since we didn’t consider only one grade of the material in the review, the results are not comparable in absolute terms and are difficult to synthesise. Honestly, there are not too many articles that focus solely on one material grade, the PCD tool, a similar microtexture geometry, and the production technology. But comparing results within a single case (particular material, particular PCD tool, microtextures, and production technology) can reveal the most efficient trend. Thus, we have added the relevant paragraph at the end of the introduction, and we are thankful to the respectful reviewer for the topic for further research.

Point 6: Regarding the bibliography, I observed that a significant portion of the references comes from the same group of authors, which could introduce bias. I also miss additional works from Fernández-Lucio, whose career is extensive in this research line. Furthermore, key publications on tribology and textured tools from major journals (CIRP Annals, Wear, Tribology International, etc.) are lacking.

Response 6: Thank you for your proposal. We tried to improve our bibliography; however, we cannot include the publications of the mentioned author due to ethical issues. A few publications in CIRP Annals, Wear, and Tribology International were included.

Point 7: I must say that the article contains a great amount of useful information and it has been a pleasure to review it. However, it still needs a more analytical reorganization, avoidance of repeated experimental descriptions, and improved internal coherence before publication.

Response 7: Thank you once again for your kind evaluation of our manuscript. We have tried to improve our manuscript in line with the provided recommendations and hope it looks better in its current version.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

More new works for the Hard-to-cut materials can be cited, for example, Yulong Ding et al 2026 Int. J. Extrem. Manuf. 8 025004, Femtosecond laser fabrication of black quartz for infrared photodetection applications, Ultrafast laser-induced decomposition for selective activation of GaAs

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments (Round 2)

Dear reviewer, We find this inappropriate, as one of the two papers you recommended has already been cited, although this violates the ethical guidelines for peer review of scientific articles. We would like to point out that the topic of this article (destructive lasers) is interesting, but it is in no way related to the study's topic, which is why we added an additional paragraph that was not included in the further discussion. We would like to remind that this article is undergoing an open review process, and all reviews and responses to them will be published online. Therefore, we do not agree to include this extra reference in the reference list and retract the previous change to the manuscript regarding the previously recommended reference. We are afraid that they are both related to the authorship of the respected reviewer and his scientific group. The editors of the reputable journal, which enjoys a high standing in the scientific community and a high ranking, will be notified of the previously discussed issue. Thank you once again for your kind help in making our manuscript better.   Kind regards, Authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It's fine. 

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments (Round 2)

Dear reviewer,

Thank you so much for your kind evaluation of our work. We wish all the best in 2026.

 

Kind regards,

Authors.