Broadband Reflective Liquid Crystal Films Prepared by Rapid Inkjet Printing and Superposition Polymerization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents interesting results, worth to publish but not in Crystals, they are more suited to journals like the Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing or Micromachines. Before considering its publication some corrections/comments should be done:
- First of all, the English has to be improved. Some parts of manuscript is not easy to follow.
- Editorial errors should be corrected, like for example in lines 48 and 50 there should be a dot and a space instead of a semicolon. Please double-check the entire manuscript (remove spaces, add spaces, replace coma with dot, etc.).
- Section 2.2: Authors wrote about contact angle measurements but such results are not presented in the manuscript.
- Section 3.1, first paragraph: there should be Figure 3a and Figures 3b-d instead of Figure 4a and Figures 4b-d, respectively. This entire section 3.1 should be corrected because is difficult to understand, and additionally a reference to Figure 4 should be added, e.g. in line 193.
- Figures 5 & 6: What is a configuration of polarizer and analyzer during taking these photos? Are they crossed or in parallel? Please add the information in the capture.
- Conclusion. Please rewrite to highlight the differences/similarities between the sample created by jnk printing and by hand. The last sentence is not necessary.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers:
Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Broadband reflective liquid crystal films prepared by rapid inkjet printing and superposition polymerization” (ID: crystals-1547401). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. Please see the attachment. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
1..First of all, the English has to be improved. Some parts of manuscript is not easy to follow.
Respond: The English expression in the manuscript has been modified accordingly
2.. Editorial errors should be corrected, like for example in lines 48 and 50 there should be a dot and a space instead of a semicolon. Please double-check the entire manuscript (remove spaces, add spaces, replace coma with dot, etc.).
Respond: The errors mentioned have been corrected.
3.. Section 2.2: Authors wrote about contact angle measurements but such results are not presented in the manuscript.
Respond: The results of contact angle have been added to the manuscript.
4.. Section 3.1, first paragraph: there should be Figure 3a and Figures 3b-d instead of Figure 4a and Figures 4b-d, respectively. This entire section 3.1 should be corrected because is difficult to understand, and additionally a reference to Figure 4 should be added, e.g. in line 193.
Respond: We have written this part according to the Reviewer’ s suggestion. The errors mentioned have been corrected.
5.. Figures 5 & 6: What is a configuration of polarizer and analyzer during taking these photos? Are they crossed or in parallel? Please add the information in the capture.
Respond: The information mentioned have been added to the manuscript.
6.. Conclusion. Please rewrite to highlight the differences/similarities between the sample created by jnk printing and by hand. The last sentence is not necessary.
Respond: The sentence mentioned has been revised accordingly.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Perhaps the results presented in the article are of some interest, but the presentation is so confusing that it is difficult to give a conclusion! The text is replete with maxims of the form “ink‐jet printing technology”, but the goals and methods that the authors will offer readers remain unclear, as well as the novelty of the proposed approach. In paragraph 2.1, it is impossible to understand what materials will be used in the future, and in paragraph 2.2, an enumeration of some methods equipped with special designations is given.
To make a judgment about the novelty of the declared approach, the authors, first of all, must clearly formulate the purpose and methods of research of the proposed problem, and its novelty. Next, there should be a clear description of how these results were achieved! And the article should end with a list of the results obtained and ways to further study these problems.
When all this is done, then it will be possible to make a conclusion about the expediency of publishing this manuscript!
Author Response
Dear Reviewers:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Broadband reflective liquid crystal films prepared by rapid inkjet printing and superposition polymerization” (ID: crystals-1547401). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. Please see the attachment.
Thank you very much for your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been revised in line with the comments but still the English needs to be improved, for example:
- Lines 240-241, the sentence is “Figure 5 (a) illustrates the contact angle of ordinary glass substrate was 23.0 ± 0.5° and that of glass substrate modified by PTFE was 56.3 ± 0.5°as shown in Figure 5 (b).” while it should be “The contact angle of ordinary glass substrate was 23.0 ± 0.5° and that of glass substrate modified by PTFE was 56.3 ± 0.5° as shown in Figure 5 (b).”
- Line 261, the sentence begins: “Comparing with Figure 6 (c) and (d)….” while it should be “Comparing Figure 6 (c) and (d)…”
- Line 262, the sentence “Comparison Figure 6 (e) shows the PSCLC film between two layers of unmodified ordinary glass substrate.” is not understandable.
- Line 266, it should be “focal conic texture”
- Lines 309-310, there is “….and then stacked and polymerized in situ by in-situ UV polymerization,…”.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The current version of the article fully meets all the requirements for articles to be published in the journal Crystals, with the exception that equations 1 and 2 must end with commas, while equation 3-with a dot.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
