Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

“Cationic polymerized epoxy and radiation cured acrylate blend 2 nanocomposites based on WS2 and silica nanoparticles “ by Gershoni et al. describes experiments in curing epoxy/methyl acrylate, fumed silica with different cationic initiators for epoxy. They also investigated the possibility of hardening in the presence of WS2 fullerenes. Apart from the state of the art, which is well described, the manuscript is poorly written, the references are missing, and the captions do not fully describe the figures. The discussion of the results should be thorough. I, therefore, propose to publish this manuscript only after major writing and modifications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I attach a document with my comments and recommendations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

-The section “Abstract” should be improved

- The experimental methods are unclearly described.

-The section “Results and discussion” are unclearly presented.

- The results obtained by authors are modest and presented incompletely.

-The section “Conclusions” should be better

-The section “References”- The authors should use and cite more recent references years

 

In my opinion the paper” “Cationic polymerized epoxy and radiation cured acrylate blend nanocomposites based on WS2 and silica nanoparticles” after being revised it can be published in your journal.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have added the necessary modification to the manuscript and therefore the paper can be published as is in J. Compos. Sci

Author Response

Attached find the response to Reviewer 1

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have corrected the comments made by the referee. Now the text is more in line to be published in the Journal of Composites Science. However, there are some points on which the referee does not agree.

 

- The term IF (line 18) must be defined in the abstract since it is the first time it appears.

 

- The authors comments in lines 100-101 that “Hence, numerous studies were conducted aiming to improve the toughness of the CC epoxies”. The authors have only added one reference. If the authors comment in the text that there are numerous studies, they should add several references.

 

 

- The referee believes that the figures made with Excell are not appropriate to present them in a scientific document. In the previous review, the referee commented that the figures should be prepared with more scientific programs (Matlab, Origin Lab,...). The authors have made no changes to the figures.

Author Response

Attached find the response to Reviewer 2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made corrections to the text but the figures have not been modified.