Mechanical and Tribological Properties of CrWN/MoN Nano-Multilayer Coatings Deposited by Cathodic Arc Ion Plating

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article reports on the preparation and characterization of CrWN/MoN nano-multilayer coatings with different modulation periods and their mechanical and tribological properties. The article is well-written and organized, with clear objectives, methods, results, and conclusions. The article also discusses the possible mechanisms and factors that affect the performance of the coatings. However, there are minor revisions needed to enhance its overall quality.

1.       The article does not explain why the hardness and friction coefficient of the CrWN/MoN coatings vary with the modulation period, and what are the optimal values for different applications. The article also does not discuss the effect of other parameters, such as bias voltage, deposition pressure, and temperature, on the properties of the coatings.

2.       The article does not compare the CrWN/MoN nano-multilayer coatings with other types of coatings, such as TiN, AlN, or ZrN, that have similar applications and properties. This makes it difficult to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the CrWN/MoN coatings in terms of performance, cost, and durability.

3.       Figure 7 presents a graph that is difficult to comprehend due to its complexity. The meaning of the symbols representing the samples is unclear. Redrawing the graph to ensure the symbols are visible throughout would improve clarity. Consider using a colored graph if it is feasible for the authors.

It is appropriate to reconsider the manuscript after the minor revisions listed above have been made.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in this article needs to be improved. There are grammatical errors and spelling mistakes in the text. For example: In the methodology section, the phrase “the samples was heated” should be “the samples were heated”. In the results section, the phrase “the hardness of coating increase” should be “the hardness of the coating increases”. In the experimental section, the word “substrates” is misspelled as “substrate” in the phrase “the substrates were placed in the holder”. These errors suggest that the article was not proofread or edited by a native English speaker or a professional language service. The article could benefit from a thorough revision to improve its clarity, accuracy, and readability.

Author Response

We have modified the manuscript, Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents intriguing insights, yet enhancing clarity is advised for better understanding.

1. The abstract would benefit from refinement to clearly articulate the original contributions of the research.

2. The conclusion section requires a rewrite to elucidate the key findings more effectively.

3. Improvements are needed throughout the paper to offer clearer descriptions, addressing the following questions:

A. How do alterations in the modulation period influence the microstructural characteristics of nano-multilayer coatings, as assessed by techniques such as GIXRD and HRTEM?

B. What are the comparative mechanical properties, particularly hardness, among nano-multilayer coatings with varying modulation periods, and how do they compare to conventional monolayer coatings?

C. Is there a discernible correlation between modulation period and surface attributes, encompassing particle size, quantity, and surface defects, across diverse types of nano-multilayer coatings?

D. How do adjustments in the modulation period impact the frictional behavior and wear resistance of nano-multilayer coatings, and what are the implications of achieving optimal performance at specific modulation periods?

E. What factors, including hardness and specific mechanical ratios, contribute to the overall wear resistance of nano-multilayer coatings, and how do these factors interact with modulation period to influence wear rates?

Author Response

We have modified the manuscript, please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have the following comments on the submitted article.

1. The introductory part of the article is well prepared, but it needs to be transformed as follows: Give the name of the author and then write what he addressed in his contribution and at the end state his results. It's not like you're supposed to just make a claim and quote the article numbers at the end.

2. I recommend increasing the font sizes on the image axes: 1.5,

Unreadable axes

3. Write in the text how the average values of COF were calculated (Fig 7.), whether they were taken from the entire curve or were subtracted only from a selected part of individual curves. Because it would be ideal if the average values were taken from 2/3 of the COF curves.

4. Enter in fig. 7 and 8 COF units (even if they are without a unit).

5. The article should include a Discussion chapter, where all the results will be discussed.

6. Why was a load of 15N and a rotation speed between 0.5 rpm and 3 rpm selected???

7. Please insert a sample result for one selected nanohardness measurement (which are shown in Fig. 5).

8. Fig. 10. rotate the images of the three tracks in one direction

Author Response

We have modified the manuscript, Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for incorporating my comments, I recommend the article for publication.