Control of MHD Flow and Heat Transfer of a Micropolar Fluid through Porous Media in a Horizontal Channel
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The title is very general, it should be revised to specify the considered configuration.
The main findings are to be mentioned in the abstract.
The novelty of the paper is to be clearly stated. Several similar work can be found in the literature and the used numerical technique is very basic.
Why is the applied magnetic field chosen toward the y-direction?
Why the considered value of Ha are limited to 50?
Why no results related to the current density are presented?
What is the considered value of Pr?
Use ‘’Prandtl’’ instead of ‘’Prantl’’
In Eq 3, the authors considered the effect of buoyancy force, but Rayleigh (or Grashof) number doesn’t appear in the dimensionless equations. To be explained.
The governing equations (1-4) are time dependent, but the transformed equations are time independent. To be justified.
Use ‘’.’’ Instead of ‘’,’’ for the decimals.
For figures 8 and 9, the results for Ha = 0 are to be presented.
The following paper may be added to the literature review:
https://doi.org/10.1108/HFF-03-2022-0192
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
please see the attachment.
Sincerely,
Miloš Kocić
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors have studied the steady micropolar fluid flow in porous media between two plates. They reduced the general equations of the problem to ordinary differential equations and solved them in closed form. Some of my recommendations are given below:
1) The authors have added some very short paragraphs in the introduction section. Please merge the small ones as it does not look appropriate.
2) The authors may add some important studies related to micropolar such as: Effect of thermal radiation on conjugate natural convection flow of a micropolar fluid along a vertical surface. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 83, 74–83. Periodic magnetohydrodynamic natural convection flow of a micropolar fluid with radiation. International Journal of Thermal Sciences., 111, 215–222
3) Add the citations for equations (1)-(4).
4) How authors chose the values of the dimensionless parameters in their graphs.
5) Physical interpretation of the graphs is missing. Please explain them.
6) In the conclusion, the authors should clearly indicate the applications in which their outcomes can be implemented.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
please see the attachment.
Sincerely,
Miloš Kocić
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors deal with a model of the steady-state micropolar fluid flow in porous media between two plates. The flow is driven by the constant pressure gradient along the flow, while two parallel plates are fixed and have different constant temperatures during the fluid flow. It is assumed that perpendicular to the flow, an external magnetic field is applied. Governing equations of the model are reduced to a system of ordinary differential equations. The authors made an attempt to solve this system analytically and explain the influence of some parameters on the fluid flow.
The problem under consideration is undoubtedly interesting, but the manuscript is still far from the standard level of the publication quality in scientific journals and needs to be improved. Below I explain the reasons.
1. Page 8. The authors have written "The constants that occur in equations (22) to (38) are given in the APPENDIX". However, there is no appendix to the paper and it is impossible to judge the correctness of the solutions obtained.
2. The authors do not discuss the existence and uniqueness of solutions to the main system (12)-(15).
3. The authors report that they have obtained analytical solutions, but they are extremely cumbersome. Perhaps it is better to use a numerical approach to find a solution to the problem? If the answer is no, then why?
4. What is the reason for choosing the values of physical parameters on Page 6?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
please see the attachment.
Sincerely,
Miloš Kocić
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept in present form
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
several changes have been made in the English language in the manuscript.
Sincerely,
Miloš Kocić
Reviewer 3 Report
I believe that the authors responded well to my comments from the first review. Indeed, they have explained initially obscure points in the manuscript. However, one issue remained unresolved. It is necessary to explicitly define in the paper the constitutive law for the micropolar fluid model. It is one of the key points in understanding the problem under consideration for inexperienced readers. Moreover, I think that the significance of the study of micropolar fluid flows can be further emphasized by the mention of the recent related works on analytical solutions:
https://doi.org/10.26637/MJM0S20/0123
https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13081355
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
please see the attachment.
Sincerely,
Miloš Kocić
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
I am satisfied with the revisions and answers of the authors. One can see the quality of the article has improved. I believe that the obtained results are original and the work brings an important contribution to the fields. Therefore, I recommend with pleasure the manuscript for publication in "Fluids" MDPI.
