Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors compared two steels (a ferritic-martensitic steel and a ferritic steel with nanoprecipitates) for resistance to hydrogen embrittlement. The results showed improved resistance to hydrogen embrittlement in the ferritic steel at the same strength. The paper is useful and can be published. However, the following issues in the manuscript need to be addressed.

1. The main issue relates to the delayed tensile testing methodology. It remains unclear whether the specimens were pre-charged before or during testing. This issue should be clarified in the methods section.
2. Include more literature from the last 5-10 years.
3. In the Introduction section (or Discussion section), analyze more data on the effect of second-phase particles on hydrogen damage [e.g., Russian Metallurgy (Metally). 2013 (2013) 790-796, etc.; Mat Res Innovat 3, 263–270 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/s100190000043].
4. Why do the authors refer to ferritic steels with nanoprecipitates as "advanced"? These are certainly good steels, but what are their outstanding advantages?
5. Remove the technical information from the bottom of Figures 2 and 3. Provide only the scale mark. Make it brighter.
6. Check the figure numbers when referencing them in the text. It appears that the links to Figures 9 (line 221) and 10 (line 227) are incorrect.
7. Add the object of the study in the Conclusion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript represents an excellent contribution to the CMD journal. It demonstrates a high degree of scientific rigor and presents findings of significant relevance to specialists in hydrogen embrittlement. Nevertheless, several recommendations are offered to further enhance the quality and clarity of the work.

• The authors employ SSRT and a nominal strain rate in their experiments without providing sufficient justification for the choice of either the testing method or the selected strain rate. It is recommended that they reference comparable studies to substantiate these methodological choices, e.g.: https://doi.org/10.3390/met6010011 ; https://doi.org/10.5006/2137 ; https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-024-10612-5.
• While the schematic shown in Figure 6 is useful, it would also be beneficial to include an actual photograph of the cell employed in the experimental setup.
• It is recommended that all variables in the mathematical equations be written in italics for consistency and clarity.
• In Section 2.5, it is recommended to clarify the precise locations from which each of the fractographs was obtained.
• The procedure employed to generate the simulation flux presented in Figure 10 is not clearly described in the manuscript; therefore, it is recommended that additional details be provided to clarify this aspect.
• Given that the intended contribution is of a general nature for the steels investigated, it is recommended that the authors clarify the rationale for using engineering stress–strain data rather than true stress–strain data in the Discussion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is acceptable.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My previous recommendations were taken into consideration and the manuscript has been accepted for publication.