Frictional Characteristic Curves of Ground Surfaces in Lubricated Sliding
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript ID: lubricants-2542350
Despite the efforts done by the authors, and the manuscript contains a good scientific story, there are some important points that should be considered by the authors.
· Major comments
1. Please remove the word doctor (Dr. ) from the names of the authors. This was not written in the scientific publication.
2. The manuscript should be revised grammatically, and the language should be improved.
3. All references should be revised carefully and corrected. The names of the authors within the text must be reviewed and matched with what is in the references, and the duplicate reference should be deleted. Besides, the reference numbering and sequence within the text should be checked. Also, the missing data in the references must be completed and written in a single format.For examples
· Ref. No. 9 is missing in the text.
· It is required to complete the missing data in Refs. 16 and 17.
[16] Ludema, K.C., 1996, “Friction, Wear, Lubrication: a Textbook in…..?????
[17] Tribology”, CRC Press, USA, 257 pp. ??????
· Reference 20 is repeated with another number, 21.
· Guegan et.al [25]….. Should be Zhang and Hugh !!!!
· The abbreviation et al. was written incorrectly many times. In Refs. J Zhang et.al noted [24], Guegan et.al [25] ..etc.
· Abstract
1. The purpose of the study is not clearly described.
· Introduction
1. Line 63, “Petterson” should be changed to “Petterson et al.”.
2. Line 82, "rated" prefers to be changed to "classified".
· Materials and Methods
1. The author didn’t mention more information about the materials used (Aluminum pin or Stainless Steel specimens) such as material grades or chemical composition.
2. The author did not mention the SEM examination in the experimental.
3. It is suggested to do a hardness test on all specimens for better characterization.
4. Line 132, “40 deg C” should be changed to “ 40 oC”.
· Results
1. The authors do not mention Figure 4 in the text.
· Discussion
1. Line 398, “Zhang et.al noted [24] that” should be changed to “Zhang et.al [24] noted that”.
· Conclusions
The abstract must be written with specific points that define the most important outputs of this research work and its impact on engineering applications.
· References
In addition to what was previously mentioned regarding the references, it is necessary to update the references. The newest reference
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The manuscript should be revised grammatically, and the language should be improved.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
My deep regards and heart felt gratitude for providing me with the necessary guidance from your experience on improving my publication. I really felt enriched when I went through correcting them, especially when I was revisiting my abstract and the conclusions towards brining out the relevance of this work on practical engineering applications. Please do not hesitate to let me know if there are still more improvements that you might want to be done.
Sincerely,
Gopakumar
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Please find my comments in the pdf document.
In general, it is not very clear what the objectives of the paper are, and how the conclusions confirm this. It is said in the beginning that a study will be made about the effect of roughness on Stribeck regimes, but a clear discussion is not yet present. The discussion needs a lot of improvement, it is hard to read and follow. The summary table give a good synthesis of the results, but it does not add any explanations to the differences.
The explanations about the differences , depending on roughness, speed and viscosity should be more clearly presented, one next to the other. Why do some regimes not display the 'M' curves while others do, should be discussed not only in light of the Stribeck curve, but in terms of more fundamental mechanisms (Bowden-Tabor expression of friction). The Stribeck curve is not a theoretical curve, and is not based on a model, it is a convenient representation of different regimes but it should not be used a a theory to compare behavior with.
There is no such thing as 'Stribeck behavior'.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Several 'big' words are used, maybe with the help of a thesaurus. This may make the text much more difficult to read for non-English readers and is not necessary. It is not a sign of scientific quality, to use difficult English words. I would advise against it and use more simple words, shorter sentences, to make the message come across.
Author Response
Dear Sir,
My deep regards and heart felt gratitude for providing me with the necessary guidance from your experience on improving my publication. I really felt enriched when I went through correcting them. Please do not hesitate to let me know if there are still more improvements that you might want to be done.
Sincerely,
Gopakumar
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All comments have been answered, and the article is ready for publication after fulfilling the publishing requirements with the editor.
