The Effect of Hardwood Veneer Densification on Plywood Density, Surface Hardness, and Screw Withdrawal Capacity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors investigated the surface hardness and screw withdrawal capacity of densified low-value hardwood plywood as an alternative to high-quality birch.

The research is valuable for value-adding to low-value hardwoods for "construction requirements" to offer "practical applications" but there are no examples or suggestions by the authors of such practical applications for densified plywood. Page 7 suggests furniture and flooring due to increasing surface hardness but what about screw withdrawal?

Since this research focuses on densification, it is unusual that set recovery dimensions were not included to evaluate the physical properties and dimensional changes of each specie post densification. 

The authors state "hardness is only obtained from the one surface of the plywood panel and other layers do not have effect on the hardness of the plywood" this in contradictory to some literature that state the substrate density of a panel affects the products hardness.

Were any delamination tests performed on the densified plywood samples? it would be good to know what affect the densification process has on the glue bond performance of the plywood.

Is there any additional information regarding the production process to compare the densified face veneer plywood with the full densified plywood panel to offer insights to the production costs or return on investment between the 2 concepts? perhaps some rationale or justification for why a consumer would choose one over the other particularly for use in construction.   

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some language used in this manuscript is very informal. page 7 "Another thing that strikes here,...." and "On the other hand..." page 8 "The firsts thing that stands out is that the...". These need to be re-written to suit the academic language of the journal.

Some parts of the manuscript read like a thesis for example page 6 section 3.2, "from the previous chapter..."

All in-text references have errors... this could be a formatting issue and not the authors fault.

The top paragraph on page 9 is stinkingly similar to the top paragraph of page 7. This is not the only form of repetition found in the manuscript. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors.

I have completed my reading and analysis of your Manuscript, submitted to the journal Forests. To make corrections easier for you. All my observations are highlighted in the attached manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The manuscript was prepared carefully. Subject is scientifically interesting. Techniques for strengthening and improving the mechanical properties of plywood are up-to-date research. Authors examine the impact of veneers densification on improving the properties of plywood, which interpred primarily into its density.

There are a few minor comments:

1. “Error! Reference source not found.” appears repeatedly in the text. Please correct

2. There is no information about the thickness of the plywood produced. This is important information when discussing properties. Please complete.

3. The Conclusion chapter should be edited. In this chapter, you should briefly summarize the obtained results and not describe the whole research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my comments.

My comments are now focused on English language and consistencies in the text format. I appreciate this is secondary to the research focus but over expressing and changing format styles can make the reading experience difficult. Below is a list of examples that I am referring to. 

Page 3 section 2.1  "Before peeling, peeler blocks were debarked and various variables..." you can remove the word various as it is not necessary in this sentence.

In the abstract you express numbers/percentages as "65% and 93% for aspen..." but at the end of the introduction you insert a space between the number ad unit "(up to 200 %)" this continues to alternate throughout the text. Please be consistent. 

Page 4 section 2.3 "Plywood specimens were prepared with the dimensions of 200 × 50 × 9 mm." This should be written as width x thickness x length i.e. 50 x 9 x 200.

I have also noticed the first person narrative used in several sections. While there are no rules that say this cannot be used, it appears informal. For example page 14 conclusion "In this study, we examined..."  vs "This study examined..." both say the same thing but the latter is direct and concise. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thank you for addressing my comments.

My comments are now focused on English language and consistencies in the text format. I appreciate this is secondary to the research focus but over expressing and changing format styles can make the reading experience difficult. Below is a list of examples that I am referring to. 

Page 3 section 2.1  "Before peeling, peeler blocks were debarked and various variables..." you can remove the word various as it is not necessary in this sentence.

In the abstract you express numbers/percentages as "65% and 93% for aspen..." but at the end of the introduction you insert a space between the number ad unit "(up to 200 %)" this continues to alternate throughout the text. Please be consistent. 

Page 4 section 2.3 "Plywood specimens were prepared with the dimensions of 200 × 50 × 9 mm." This should be written as width x thickness x length i.e. 50 x 9 x 200.

I have also noticed the first person narrative used in several sections. While there are no rules that say this cannot be used, it appears informal. For example page 14 conclusion "In this study, we examined..."  vs "This study examined..." both say the same thing but the latter is direct and concise. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

After reading, responding to the Reviewers, and analyzing the text, I verified that the majority of my requests (the most important for understanding the text) and those of the other Reviewers were accepted or justified by you. Therefore, I am in favor of the process for publishing the Manuscript (forests-3068109).

Author Response

Comments 1: After reading, responding to the Reviewers, and analyzing the text, I verified that the majority of my requests (the most important for understanding the text) and those of the other Reviewers were accepted or justified by you. Therefore, I am in favor of the process for publishing the Manuscript (forests-3068109).

Response 1: Thank you for your kind review.