Effect of SiC Contents on Wear Resistance Performance of Electro-Codeposited Ni-SiC Composite Coatings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsCoatings-3111197
Dear Authors,
On the first impression, this is a good, well-written and detailed experimental paper that could be published. In the beginning, I had only technical comments, which you can find below:
1. Line 5-8. Full affiliation is required. It is advisable to indicate in the following format Laboratory, school (department), institute (university), city, postal code, country, please see the Instructions for Authors.
2. Line 63. Cu Kα (The Greek letter alpha α is usually used). Does this model of diffractometer produce non-monochromatic X-ray radiation? May you have had Cu Kα1 radiation (λ= 1.5406 Å)?
3. In many places in the manuscript there is no space between the value and its dimension and (unit of measurement). Please carefully check. Lines 51, 72, 168, 170 etc.
4. Please fill in information about author contributions, funding, and conflict of interest (line 351-356).
5. Perhaps the manuscript is significantly shorter than 4,000 words, which is the recommended length for a full-length article.
6. The list of references requires significant revision and finalization in accordance with the publisher's rules.
7. However, towards the end of my review, I turned to your earlier works on this topic and saw a possible violation of scientific ethics and copyright rules. Figure 3 from your current work is absolutely identical to Figure 4 from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2021.106933 ! I believe that anyone would agree with this statement. There is no reference to this work in the list of references! The authors need to clarify this point to differentiate between the two study and the novelty of the study performed here. Why are the same TEM images published over and over again?
Sincerely,
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We deeply appreciate the time and effort you have spent in reviewing our manuscript (Coatings-3111197, Effect of Co-Deposited SiC Contents on the Wear Behaviors of Electrodeposited Ni-SiC Composite Coatings). 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 revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' comments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors. Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers' comments, and revised portions are also listed.
Responds to reviewers' comments:
On the first impression, this is a good, well-written and detailed experimental paper that could be published. In the beginning, I had only technical comments, which you can find below:
Response: Thank you very much for your support and appreciation of our work, and we are pleased that this research can be recognized by you.
- Line 5-8. Full affiliation is required. It is advisable to indicate in the following format Laboratory, school (department), institute (university), city, postal code, country, please see the Instructions for Authors.
Response: Thank you for being so conscientious on the full affiliation, and we have added them.
- Line 63. Cu Kα (The Greek letter alpha α is usually used). Does this model of diffractometer produce non-monochromatic X-ray radiation? May you have had Cu Kα1 radiation (λ= 1.5406 Å)?
Response: We quite appreciate your insightful comments about the XRD diffractometer, and we have revised the X-ray diffractometry in the paper.
- In many places in the manuscript there is no space between the value and its dimension and (unit of measurement). Please carefully check. Lines 51, 72, 168, 170 etc.
Response: We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the insightful comments, and it is really true as reviewer suggested that we add pace between the value and its dimension.
- Please fill in information about author contributions, funding, and conflict of interest (line 351-356).
Response: We quite appreciate your favorite consideration about the information about author contributions, funding, and conflict of interest, and we have added them.
- Perhaps the manuscript is significantly shorter than 4,000 words, which is the recommended length for a full-length article.
Response: Thank you for being so conscientious about the manuscript is shorter than 4000 words, however, the structure of the article is complete.
- The list of references requires significant revision and finalization in accordance with the publisher's rules.
Response: We quite appreciate your favorite consideration about the citing the work, and we have updated the cited literatures.
- However, towards the end of my review, I turned to your earlier works on this topic and saw a possible violation of scientific ethics and copyright rules. Figure 3 from your current work is absolutely identical to Figure 4 from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2021.106933 ! I believe that anyone would agree with this statement. There is no reference to this work in the list of references! The authors need to clarify this point to differentiate between the two study and the novelty of the study performed here. Why are the same TEM images published over and over again?
Response: We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the insightful comments, and we have removed Figure 3 to make the work be more novelty.
We appreciate for editor and reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This work deals with the wear behaviors of the Ni-SiC composite coatings with various contents of the co-deposited SiC particles. The authors performed an extensive experimental investigation,
The whole work is interesting.
POINTS FOR IMPROVEMENT.
1. The provided keywords could be wriiten as
wear; electrodeposition; composites; oxidation; nickel; SiC; nano twin
2. The cited literature is limited to 2020. By using the above keywords and GOOGLESCHOLAR the literature review revealed 3.070 references published after 2020. Please, kindly update cited literature
3. What's the general status in the area? The general status could be described in the introduction that is very short.
4. Are there any alternative methods to prepare these coatings? A recent review in coatings was given by
Tewari K. et al Innovative Coating Methods for the Industrial Applications
(2024) in Functional Coatings: Innovations and Challenges, pp. 23 - 50,
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85193629791&partnerID=40&md5=fdad322264682fa49382bd2d45d3739e
4. Propose ideas for future work
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewers,
We deeply appreciate the time and effort you have spent in reviewing our manuscript (Coatings-3111197, Effect of Co-Deposited SiC Contents on the Wear Behaviors of Electrodeposited Ni-SiC Composite Coatings). 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 revise the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers' comments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors. Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers' comments, and revised portions are also listed.
Responds to reviewers' comments:
This work deals with the wear behaviors of the Ni-SiC composite coatings with various contents of the co-deposited SiC particles. The authors performed an extensive experimental investigation,
The whole work is interesting.
Response: Thank you very much for revising the manuscript and addressing all comments and concerns brought up.
POINTS FOR IMPROVEMENT.
- The provided keywords could be written as
wear; electrodeposition; composites; oxidation; nickel; SiC; nano twin
Response: Thank you for being so conscientious on the keywords of the manuscript, and we have revised them.
- The cited literature is limited to 2020. By using the above keywords and GOOGLESCHOLAR the literature review revealed 3.070 references published after 2020. Please, kindly update cited literature
Response: We quite appreciate your favorite consideration about the citing the work, and we have updated the cited literatures.
- What's the general status in the area? The general status could be described in the introduction that is very short.
Response: We quite appreciate your insightful comments about the general status, and we have described and added it in introduction.
- Are there any alternative methods to prepare these coatings? A recent review in coatings was given by Tewari K. et al Innovative Coating Methods for the Industrial Applications(2024) in Functional Coatings: Innovations and Challenges, pp. 23 - 50,
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0 85193629791&partnerID=40&md5=fdad322264682fa49382bd2d45d3739e
Response: We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the insightful comments, and it is really true as reviewer suggested that we cite the recent review.
- Propose ideas for future work
Response: We quite appreciate your insightful comments about the propose ideas for future work, and we have added it in the paper.
We appreciate for editor and reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Yours.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have reported on the effect of co-deposited SiC contents on the wear behaviors of electrodeposited Ni-SiC composite coatings.
The manuscript is well-presented with various analysis data. I have some minor comments on the manuscript.
1. In the abstract part Ni-SiC abbreviation should be defined in the beginning.
2. Figure 11(e) for EDS analysis, the x-axis should corrected as Energy (Kev) and Y-axis as Intensity. Please make the font larger for better visibility.
3. In Figures 2a and b, the scale bar notation value of SEM images is not visible properly.
4. Similarly, In Figure 9, the scale bar notation value of SEM images is not visible properly.
5. Similarly, In Figures 11a, b, c, and, the scale bar notation value of SEM images is not visible properly.
6. In Figure 12, the scale bar notation value is not visible. It should be larger in font and the color of the font should be proper for better visibility.
Please make the scale bar notation value in all the SEM and other micrograph images properly visible.
I recommend a minor revision of the manuscript for publication in coating.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
- In the abstract part Ni-SiC abbreviation should be defined in the beginning.
Response: Thank you for being so conscientious on the abbreviation of Ni-SiC in abstract part, and we have revised it.
- Figure 11(e) for EDS analysis, the x-axis should corrected as Energy (Kev) and Y-axis as Intensity. Please make the font larger for better visibility.
Response: We quite appreciate your favorite consideration about Figure 11(e), and we have revised it.
- In Figures 2a and b, the scale bar notation value of SEM images is not visible properly.
Response: We quite appreciate your insightful comments about the scale bar notation value of SEM images in Figure2 and we have revised them.
- Similarly, In Figure 9, the scale bar notation value of SEM images is not visible properly.
Response: We quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the insightful comments, and it is really true as reviewer suggested that we have revised Figure 9.
- Similarly, In Figures 11a, b, c, and, the scale bar notation value of SEM images is not visible properly.
Response: We quite appreciate your insightful comments about the scale bar notation value of SEM images, and we have revise them.
- In Figure 12, the scale bar notation value is not visible. It should be larger in font and the color of the font should be proper for better visibility.
Response: Thank you for being so conscientious on Figure 12, and we have revised them.
Please make the scale bar notation value in all the SEM and other micrograph images properly visible.
I recommend a minor revision of the manuscript for publication in coating.
Response: We appreciate for editor and reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. We have revised all of them and marked in red in the revised manuscript. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
You have replaced figure 3 with images of TEM with another ones, that is great. Because the previous version was already published by you in another journal. However, I still haven’t seen your answer to my question about the novelty of this work compared to your previous work (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2021.106933).
Please include this reference in your list of references and provide a detailed description in the introduction or discussion section of your results of what was new about this work compared to your previous work.
Sincererely,
Author Response
Thank you very much for revising the manuscript and addressing all comments and concerns brought up.
We have added the reference (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2021.106933) and we have provided a detailed description in the revised paper to explain what was new compared to your previous work as follow,
The previous research work [14] showed the microstructure of Ni-19.4 vol % SiC composite coating, and SiC particle was closely surrounded by nanocrystalline Ni grains. In this work, a detailed TEM investigation has been carried out to reveal the lattice defects within the Ni nanograins in Figure 3.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsACCEPTED!
Author Response
THANKS VERY MUCH!
