Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a review on methods for Si and SiC die cutting. This work is interesting but it is required that several modifications are carried out to the manuscript before it can be considered for publication:

Some parts of the Abstract need to be revised e.g. "Since wear ... crack formation", "Both approaches ... less significant".

Subsection 3.2 appears twice in the text, so an appropriate renumbering of these subsections is required.

The authors should add some more schematics especially about the different subsections of this review as a flowchart.

Section 4 is too brief and is based only on 3 publications, 1 for each method. The authors should expand this section appropriately.

This review paper is rather brief. The authors should include additional sections e.g. relevant to the necessity of the presented processes and their applications and include additional references in order to expand the discussion of related works.

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: This manuscript presents a review on methods for Si and SiC die cutting. This work is interesting but it is required that several modifications are carried out to the manuscript before it can be considered for publication:

Response 1: Thank you for your kind evaluation of our review. We hope to make this manuscript even better with your kind help and suggestions.

Point 2: Some parts of the Abstract need to be revised e.g. "Since wear ... crack formation", "Both approaches ... less significant".

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

Point 3: Subsection 3.2 appears twice in the text, so an appropriate renumbering of these subsections is required.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing it out. The numbers of Sections are revised.

Point 4: The authors should add some more schematics especially about the different subsections of this review as a flowchart.

Response 4: Thank you for your proposal. The schematic is provided in Figure 2.

Point 5: Section 4 is too brief and is based only on 3 publications, 1 for each method. The authors should expand this section appropriately.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. We have expanded the section where it is possible by adding an additional table on the comparison of the produced effects by different methods and by providing the recommendations for dressing.

Point 6: This review paper is rather brief. The authors should include additional sections e.g. relevant to the necessity of the presented processes and their applications and include additional references in order to expand the discussion of related works.

Response 6: Thank you for your kind remark. We have enlarged the sections and the volume of the manuscript from 15 to 24 pages. We hope that it will be enough for publication in the Journal, avoiding overloading the manuscript with unnecessary data.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript provides a review on the topic of "Influence of Dressing Methods on Chipping Size during Si and SiC Die Singing", introducing several dressing processes. Overall, the content covers a wide range and the structure is relatively reasonable. Some suggestions were given.

1. In the "Introduction" section, it is suggested to add a Figure to introduce the narrative structure of this review.
2. The several mechanical board dressing methods described in Section 3.1 are suggested to be presented in a table for comparative description. The current way of describing with a large amount of text is not easy for readers to understand clearly.
3. In the third section, it is suggested to add images of the microstructure of polycrystalline diamond saw blades dressed by different process methods for display and comparison.
4. The fourth section lacks the display of the quality of the edges. Quantitative comparison is also required for the chipping size and width brought by different dressing methods.
5. Please provide clear guidance and suggestions for industrial applications through analysis in the conclusion, and indicate the development direction of this field, such as the rapid application of laser chipping technology.

Overall, the manuscript needs to be presented better in conjunction with tables and figures.

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: This manuscript provides a review on the topic of "Influence of Dressing Methods on Chipping Size during Si and SiC Die Singing", introducing several dressing processes. Overall, the content covers a wide range and the structure is relatively reasonable. Some suggestions were given.

Response 1: Thank you for your kind evaluation. We appreciate your kind help in making our manuscript more readable and understandable for the readers.

Point 2: In the "Introduction" section, it is suggested to add a Figure to introduce the narrative structure of this review.

Response 2: We are grateful for your proposal. Figure 1 is introduced in the introduction. We hope that it looks suitable and explains the research area of the study and the structure of the review.

Point 3: The several mechanical board dressing methods described in Section 3.1 are suggested to be presented in a table for comparative description. The current way of describing with a large amount of text is not easy for readers to understand clearly.

Response 3: Thank you for your kind remark; the table is added. Some material was provided with more attention to the details.

Point 4: In the third section, it is suggested to add images of the microstructure of polycrystalline diamond saw blades dressed by different process methods for display and comparison.

Response 4: We appreciate your proposal. Some pictures were added. We would note that, in our article, we tried to avoid not original figures. However, if the respectful reviewer asked to present them, we provided a few images of microscopic pictures.

Point 5: The fourth section lacks the display of the quality of the edges. Quantitative comparison is also required for the chipping size and width brought by different dressing methods.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added an additional table in Section 4 for comparison of the effects of dressing techniques.

Point 6: Please provide clear guidance and suggestions for industrial applications through analysis in the conclusion, and indicate the development direction of this field, such as the rapid application of laser chipping technology.

Response 6: Thank you for your proposal. The necessary recommendations in the form of text and a table are added into Section 4.

Point 7: Overall, the manuscript needs to be presented better in conjunction with tables and figures.

Response 7: Thank you for your kind proposal. We have tried to improve it and hope that it looks better in its current version.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors carried out most of the required modifications to their manuscript. Thus, it can be now accepted for publication.