Electrical Discharge Machining of Alumina Using Ni-Cr Coating and SnO Powder-Mixed Dielectric Medium

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research is novel and article has a potential, but you need to carry our a major revision based upon the following comments:

-Title should be clear Ni-Cr coating on what? It may be

Electric Discharge Machining of Alumina using Ni-Cr Coating and SnO powder-mixed Dielectric 

-In Abstract- SOME MORE DETAILS RELATED TO THE RESULTS ARE REQUIRED, MAY BE QUANTITATIVE RESULTS AS WELL. WHAT IS ACHIEVED AND WHATS THE CONTRIBUTION of the work in the field.

-Pls remove 'water medium' from the keywords and add 'electrical discharge machining'

-In Abstract-'The machining productivity was evaluated by calculating the material removal rate for various combinations of pulse frequency and duration. The obtained slot demonstrated increasing of more than two times. 

Its looking like a very direct sentence 'more than two times' what? you have used 'slot' who knows that wat is this slot...you have cut a slot its fine but it was not mentioned before and if you use suddenly then its confusing

-Introduction second line- Pls don't put Table within the bracket in the very first line of the paper. You may write  second line like 'Some important properties of alumina ceramics are given in Table 1'

-I don't find its a good approach to provide this much citations together for such statements, as in P1 Line 27. It represents unnecessary citations. Pls reduce the citations.

-Line 38 39 Page 1 - what are you trying to communicate beyond my understanding....pls rewrite. you might be missing some words after 'dielectric'

-P 1 Line 40-41- difficult to understand......pls rewrite....its not understandable

-P1 Line 43-44 The idea was developments??? what is this

-P1 Line 45- why are you providing Table 2 reference here.pls write separately abt Table 2 i.e. what Table 2 is presenting etc....

-P2 Line 46- pls provide Reference Citation for these Results

-Fig 1- text inside the Figs are very small pls enlarge figure and take one down to other

-Introduction is quite weak and not in flow

-Line 67- directly objectives are written, at least mention the conclusion of your literature review

-Line 73-74- from where this tin oxide is coming what dielectric power..? what are you talking abt is really not in connection and flow

-Pls rewrite whole introduction and in flow, pls provide a detailed systematic literature review

-Sintering, Coating, EDM 

All machine pics should be here in section 2 at appropriate places

-Table 3 Captions- its the specification/features/parameters not characteristics

-Line 148- 120 g weighed fthe SnO powder......pls check

-Line 158- pls explain this to me that why have you chosen on these recommendations? are all of these research papers related to EDM of Ceramics? 

-After Table 4, mention somewhere that for your EDM cutting how many experiments have been conducted by you in this study 

-3 should be Results and Discussion

-Fig 5- pls include two more pics- a complete EDM machine pic and an actual pic of ceramic sample before machining......but this along with Fig 5 a should go to Section 2.

-Fig 5 b c- microscopy images- scales are not visible pls change the colour of the scale text

Fig c is revealing what 310.74 microns mention there is what?

-4. Discussion- This could be 3.6 Comparison with Literature

-Conclusions should be Section 4

-Conclusions is very weak. There could be many conclusion points.....pls write conclusion in bullet points approx 5-6.

The contribution of this work to the field is also missing

There is a need to highlight the novelty of this work, may be in introduction

also mention the future research avenues

-citations of 80 References are not justifiable...I think it should not be more than  50-52 at the most

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
 
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your kind evaluation of our work. We do agree with all your proposals and comments and have modified the manuscript according to them.
We hope that the manuscript will be suitable for publishing in Metals and will attract many potential readers of the journal with your comments.
Kind regards,
Authors.

Reviewer comments
Point 1: The research is novel and article has a potential, but you need to carry our a major revision based upon the following comments:

-Title should be clear Ni-Cr coating on what? It may be

Electric Discharge Machining of Alumina using Ni-Cr Coating and SnO powder-mixed Dielectric 

Response 1: Thank you so much for your kind proposal. The title is revised.

Point 2: -In Abstract- SOME MORE DETAILS RELATED TO THE RESULTS ARE REQUIRED, MAY BE QUANTITATIVE RESULTS AS WELL. WHAT IS ACHIEVED AND WHATS THE CONTRIBUTION of the work in the field.

Response 2: Thank you, the abstract is revised.

Point 3: -Pls remove 'water medium' from the keywords and add 'electrical discharge machining'

Response 3: Thank you, keywords are revised.

Point 4: -In Abstract-'The machining productivity was evaluated by calculating the material removal rate for various combinations of pulse frequency and duration. The obtained slot demonstrated increasing of more than two times. 

Its looking like a very direct sentence 'more than two times' what? you have used 'slot' who knows that wat is this slot...you have cut a slot its fine but it was not mentioned before and if you use suddenly then its confusing

Response 4: Thank you for your attention to the details. It is revised.

Point 5: -Introduction second line- Pls don't put Table within the bracket in the very first line of the paper. You may write  second line like 'Some important properties of alumina ceramics are given in Table 1'

Response 5: Thank you, it is revised as proposed.

Point 6: -I don't find its a good approach to provide this much citations together for such statements, as in P1 Line 27. It represents unnecessary citations. Pls reduce the citations.

Response 6: Thank you, we have tried to revise it.

Point 7: -Line 38 39 Page 1 - what are you trying to communicate beyond my understanding....pls rewrite. you might be missing some words after 'dielectric'

Response 7: Thank you, the grammar is revised.

Point 8: -P 1 Line 40-41- difficult to understand......pls rewrite....its not understandable

Response 8: Thank you, it is revised.

Point 9: -P1 Line 43-44 The idea was developments??? what is this

Response 9: Thank you, the fragment is revised.

Point 10: -P1 Line 45- why are you providing Table 2 reference here.pls write separately abt Table 2 i.e. what Table 2 is presenting etc....

Response 10: Thank you for your question. Table 2 presents collected data from the literature. The following passage summarizes it. It is revised.

Point 11: -P2 Line 46- pls provide Reference Citation for these Results

Response 11: Thank you, it is added.

Point 12: -Fig 1- text inside the Figs are very small pls enlarge figure and take one down to other

Response 12: Thank you, the figure is revised.

Point 13: -Introduction is quite weak and not in flow

Response 13: Thank you for your kind notice, we have tried to revise it.

Point 14: -Line 67- directly objectives are written, at least mention the conclusion of your literature review

Response 14: Thank you for your kind advice, it is added.

Point 15: -Line 73-74- from where this tin oxide is coming what dielectric power..? what are you talking abt is really not in connection and flow

Response 15: Thank you. It is true that most of the metal oxides exhibit dielectric properties. Tin monoxide is n-type broadband semiconductor with a known band gap. The fragment is revised as follows:

“The band gap of tin oxide determines the choice of this n-type broadband semiconductor powder to assist electrical discharge machining alumina when the known affinity of aluminum to nickel determines the choice of the coating composition.”

Point 16: -Pls rewrite whole introduction and in flow, pls provide a detailed systematic literature review

-Sintering, Coating, EDM 

Response 16: It is revised, thank you. We hope that the current version looks suitable for publication.

Point 17: All machine pics should be here in section 2 at appropriate places

Response 17: Thank you for the correct notice; we agree and placed it in Section 2. If it is necessary to show more pictures of the used equipment, they can be provided upon request of the reviewer.

Point 18: -Table 3 Captions- its the specification/features/parameters not characteristics

Response 18: Thank you, it is revised.

Point 19: -Line 148- 120 g weighed fthe SnO powder......pls check

Response 19: Thank you so much for pointing it; it is revised. It should be noted that SnO was measured in portions by the scale with the max possible weight of 120 g.

Point 20: -Line 158- pls explain this to me that why have you chosen on these recommendations? are all of these research papers related to EDM of Ceramics?

Response 20: Thank you for your question. [29] is related to the work on EDM ceramics, [59,60] are our own works. One is on factors research using acoustic emission during EDM, another one is on wire tool vibration amplitude during EDM. Two last ones [61,62] were removed.

Point 21: -After Table 4, mention somewhere that for your EDM cutting how many experiments have been conducted by you in this study

Response 21: Thank you, it is added. More than 150 experiments were conducted (5 repeats for each factor set).

Point 22: -3 should be Results and Discussion

Response 22: Thank you, it is modified.

Point 23: -Fig 5- pls include two more pics- a complete EDM machine pic and an actual pic of ceramic sample before machining......but this along with Fig 5 a should go to Section 2.

Response 23: Thank you, we added some figures. We hope it will satisfy the requirement of the reviewer despite the insufficient quality of the pictures.

Point 24: -Fig 5 b c- microscopy images- scales are not visible pls change the colour of the scale text

Response 24: Thank you, the figure is revised.

Point 25: Fig c is revealing what 310.74 microns mention there is what?

Response 25: Thank you for your question. It is the width of the kerf from the top view. The subfigure is revised.

Point 26: -4. Discussion- This could be 3.6 Comparison with Literature

Response 26: Thank you, it is modified.

Point 27: -Conclusions should be Section 4

Response 27: Thank you, it is revised.

Point 28: -Conclusions is very weak. There could be many conclusion points.....pls write conclusion in bullet points approx 5-6.

Response 28: Thank you, the conclusions are rewritten.

Point 29: The contribution of this work to the field is also missing

Response 29: Thank you, it is revised. We hoop that it looks better in the current version. If it is still not sufficient, we are ready to revise once again.

Point 30: There is a need to highlight the novelty of this work, may be in introduction also mention the future research avenues

Response 30: Thank you, it is revised.

Point 31: -citations of 80 References are not justifiable...I think it should not be more than 50-52 at the most

Response 31: Thank you, we have reworked the list of references. However, there are still a lot of issues, but we found it is if the Journal accepts it. Otherwise, we can revise it once again. However, such amount of used references is related to the significant experience of working and researching in the mentioned research field that overlapped with the other areas of our studies.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an extensive work that deserves to be presented better as in its current state is let down by several shortcomings:

1) Clarity of the style and quality of the english language must be improved. There are several mistakes in the text, misspelt words, wrongly translated ones (red hardness, whiteness, gridding, etc).

2) The EDM details are incomplete, please remove what is not available.

3) Figure 2b is trivial and doesn't add any information, the same happens for Figure 3b. Please remove them or substitute with more useful images.

4) Part of Discussion is in Results and Conclusions and this makes the relative section too short. Please expand the discussion section.

5) The conclusion section appears rushed and could benefit from a rewrite.

6) A lot of citations appears to be self citations that have little use in this work, please review them and remove what is not needed. Ranged citations [X-Y] are usually not a good idea as it is impossible to identify which work was really used. This should be avoided where possible.

In conclusion a reasonable study that just needs a bit more attention before being taken into consideration.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
 
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your kind evaluation of our work. We do agree with all your proposals and comments and have modified the manuscript according to them.
We hope that the manuscript will be suitable for publishing in Metals and will attract many potential readers of the journal with your comments.
Kind regards,
Authors.

Reviewer comments
This is an extensive work that deserves to be presented better as in its current state is let down by several shortcomings:

Point 1: Clarity of the style and quality of the english language must be improved. There are several mistakes in the text, misspelt words, wrongly translated ones (red hardness, whiteness, gridding, etc).

Response 1: Thank you for pointing it out. Red hardness is now hot hardness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_hardness; colorimetric whiteness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_(colorimetry) is excluded, grinding is revised. Overall the text was modified by a native speaker.

Point 2: The EDM details are incomplete, please remove what is not available.

Response 2: Thank you, it is revised.

Point 3: Figure 2b is trivial and doesn't add any information, the same happens for Figure 3b. Please remove them or substitute with more useful images.

Response 3: Thank you, both subfigures are removed.

Point 4: Part of Discussion is in Results and Conclusions and this makes the relative section too short. Please expand the discussion section.

Response 4: Thank you, the section of Discussion is revised.

Point 5: The conclusion section appears rushed and could benefit from a rewrite.

Response 5: Thank you, the conclusions are revised.

Point 6: A lot of citations appears to be self citations that have little use in this work, please review them and remove what is not needed. Ranged citations [X-Y] are usually not a good idea as it is impossible to identify which work was really used. This should be avoided where possible.

In conclusion a reasonable study that just needs a bit more attention before being taken into consideration.

Response 6: Thank you for your remark. The list of references is revised.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am convinced and all ok for acceptance. Good Work.

Before you finalize, pls make two minor corrections 

-There is 'of' missing in the Tile between Machining and Alumina

-Last two points of conclusions are related to future research and should be in one single last sentence of the paper not in bullet points.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments, round 2
 
Dear reviewer,
Thank you so much for your kind evaluation of our work. We do agree with your proposals and have modified the manuscript according to them.
We hope that the manuscript will attract many potential readers to the journal.

The introduced changes are marked blue.

Kind regards,
Authors.

Reviewer 1 comments, round 2
Point 1: -There is 'of' missing in the Tile between Machining and Alumina

Response 1: Thank you so much for your correct proposal. It is revised.

 

Point 2: -Last two points of conclusions are related to future research and should be in one single last sentence of the paper not in bullet points.

Response 2: Thank you, the conclusions are revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf