Research Progress on Slip Behavior of α-Ti under Quasi-Static Loading: A Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is highly recommended to revise the grammar and spelling of the text, in particular, "The" articles are missing or placed where they are not needed. A short list of corrections:
Line 32: “more excellent” shall be rephrased
Line 38-39: A reference is needed for the sentence “Essentially, the influences of these factors are attributed to the blocking and transfer capacity of the dislocation slip.”
Line 99: “The deformation of these alloys are dominated”. Correct as “The deformation of these alloys is dominated”
Line 134: “In the initial stage of plastic deformation of the alloy”. The same can be applied not only to alloys but also to pure materials.
Line 172: ” Generally, θ±5â—¦”. Check if the degree sign is correct.
Lines 235-236: “The slip system with a lower CRSS does not mean that the alloy is preferentially activated during deformation”. Probably, instead of “alloy is preferentially activated”, the authors mean that this slip system is activated.
Line 241: “the polycrystalline with a stronger {0001} texture”. Polycrystalline what?
Line 242: “greater proportion grains”. Greater proportion of grains.
Line 266: “grain boundaries are strong barriers of the dislocation slip”. Grain boundaries are strong barriers for dislocation slip.
Grammar is not corrected after line 266 and it is up to the authors to carefully revise it.
Author Response
Dear editor and reviewers,
We, the authors, would like to express great gratitude over your letter and the valuable comments from the reviewer on our manuscript. We have learned much from the reviewer’s comments, which are encouraging and constructive. Meanwhile, we take your concerns seriously and try to allay them. After carefully looking through the comments, we have made corresponding changes. Attached is the revised version, we would like to submit for your kind consideration and hope the revised manuscript can be published in Metals.
Thank you very much for your time!
Yours sincerely,
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1:
It is highly recommended to revise the grammar and spelling of the text, in particular, "The" articles are missing or placed where they are not needed. A short list of corrections:
Line 32: “more excellent” shall be rephrased
Line 38-39: A reference is needed for the sentence “Essentially, the influences of these factors are attributed to the blocking and transfer capacity of the dislocation slip.”
Line 99: “The deformation of these alloys are dominated”. Correct as “The deformation of these alloys is dominated”
Line 134: “In the initial stage of plastic deformation of the alloy”. The same can be applied not only to alloys but also to pure materials.
Line 172: ” Generally, θ±5â—¦”. Check if the degree sign is correct.
Lines 235-236: “The slip system with a lower CRSS does not mean that the alloy is preferentially activated during deformation”. Probably, instead of “alloy is preferentially activated”, the authors mean that this slip system is activated.
Line 241: “the polycrystalline with a stronger {0001} texture”. Polycrystalline what?
Line 242: “greater proportion grains”. Greater proportion of grains.
Line 266: “grain boundaries are strong barriers of the dislocation slip”. Grain boundaries are strong barriers for dislocation slip.
Grammar is not corrected after line 266 and it is up to the authors to carefully revise it.
Response: Thank you for your remind. The grammar and spelling of the text are corrected carefully by consulting English speakers. Wrong or missing "the" articles are deleted or added.
Line 32: “More excellent” is rephrased to “excellent comprehensive”.
Line 38-39: The reference is added.
Line 99: The word “are” has been replaced with “is”.
Line 134: “Of the alloy” is deleted.
Line 172: The degree sign is corrected.
Lines 235-236: The sentence is revised to “The slip system with a lower CRSS does not mean it is preferentially activated during deformation” .
Line 241: The words “polycrystalline materials” are used.
Line 242: The words “of” is added.
Line 266: The word “of” has been replaced with “for”.
We revise the grammar carefully after line 266 and not list them here in detail.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The 1st sentence and 2nd sentence of the review article is confusing. Please clarify, mechanical properties or the slip transfer behavior? Which one is the core idea of review?
2. 1st two sentences of introduction are so long. Rewrite them.
3. In introduction once author write Ti and then use full form Titinium, please check it.
4. Alot of changes in Abstract is required, such as line 15, 16 and 17 of page 1.
5. Page 2 , lines 49 , 59 , besides dislocation slip and twinning? Complete the sentence or re-write it.
6. Page 2 Line 56 d-well fatigue?
7. Section 3 , is it compulsory to add mathematical derivation in review article?
8. please check CRSS, line 193, again authors used complete form, in introduction it was already defined.
9. Author declare 20 years of research have been made on Ti, but only some studies are mentioned in table 1.
10. General information is presented on 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1.
11. Page 16, 462-465, why you introduce the formula? Please elaborate its importance.
12. Fig 15 , SEM map? Or micrograph?
13. Otherwise, paper is well written , some times its difficult to follow the sentence structure (long sentences).
Author Response
Dear editor and reviewers,
We, the authors, would like to express great gratitude over your letter and the valuable comments from the reviewer on our manuscript. We have learned much from the reviewer’s comments, which are encouraging and constructive. Meanwhile, we take your concerns seriously and try to allay them. After carefully looking through the comments, we have made corresponding changes. Attached is the revised version, we would like to submit for your kind consideration and hope the revised manuscript can be published in Metals.
Thank you very much for your time!
Yours sincerely,
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #2:
1. The 1st sentence and 2nd sentence of the review article is confusing. Please clarify, mechanical properties or the slip transfer behavior? Which one is the core idea of review?
Response: Thank you for your remind. The core idea of review is the slip behavior. To highlight the core idea, the 1st sentence and 2nd sentence of the review article are corrected. The sentences in review are, “This paper reviews the dislocation slip behavior of α phase in α, near α and α+β titanium alloys dominated by α-Ti deformation under quasi-static loading. The relation of slip activity, slip transfer, slip blocking, twinning and crack initiation is discussed mainly combined with in-situ tensile technology.”
2. 1st two sentences of introduction are so long. Rewrite them.
Response: Thank you for your remind. The sentences is rewritten as “Nowadays, titanium (Ti) alloys are widely used in aerospace, biomaterials and other fields. It is benefiting from their high specific strength, excellent biocompatibility and controllable microstructures produced by different fabrication technologies.”
3. In introduction once author write Ti and then use full form Titanium, please check it.
Response: Thank you for your remind. The errors have been corrected.
4. A lot of changes in Abstract is required, such as line 15, 16 and 17 of page 1.
Response: Thank you for your remind. Abstract has been major revised.
5. Page 2 , lines 49 , 59 , besides dislocation slip and twinning? Complete the sentence or re-write it.
Response: Thank you for your remind. The sentence has been rewritten.
6. Page 2 Line 56 d-well fatigue?
Response: Thank you for your remind. The word has been corrected.
7. Section 3 , is it compulsory to add mathematical derivation in review article?
Response: Thank you for your question. Your question is very professional. For a review, the mathematical derivation of the formula should not be discussed in detail. However, the expression in the review is only a list of formulas and does not discuss in detail how to determine the formula according to the geometric relationship. For in-situ experiments, the determination of the slip system is important and it is necessary to list the formulas for determining the SF of the slip system and the angle (θ) between the slip traces and tensile direction. In the review, multiple short formulas are used instead of one long formula. The multiple formulas can be regarded as a long formula, rather than process of derivation. To allay your worries, this part has been revised. It is feasible to express this lengthy formula in terms of explaining the various parameters.
8. Please check CRSS, line 193, again authors used complete form, in introduction it was already defined.
Response: Thank you for your remind. The sentence has been rewritten.
9. Author declare 20 years of research have been made on Ti, but only some studies are mentioned in table 1.
Response: Your doubts are very reasonable and professional. The studies shown in Table 1 are typical and comparative studies selected from the literatures in recent years. Although there are lots of literatures, the number of literatures that have been screened is small. In addition, in order to ensure the reliability of the comparison results, many studies on Ti-alloys after special treatment have been filtered and only the studies on Ti-alloys after traditional processing are retained.
10. General information is presented on 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1.
Response: Your reminder is constructive. Most of the general information have been deleted and a distinction is made between general information and the latest research progress.
11. Page 16, 462-465, why you introduce the formula? Please elaborate its importance.
Response: Thanks for your question. After analysis and discussion, introduce of the formula is unnecessary. The formula is deleted.
12. Fig 15, SEM map? Or micrograph?
Response: After verifying the original literature, it is indeed a SE image in Figure 15 (a).
13. Otherwise, paper is well written , some times its difficult to follow the sentence structure (long sentences).
Response: Thank you for your professional review and appreciation of the paper. The wrong sentences have been edited, if there are still errors, please do not hesitate to point them out.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The present review manuscript “Research progress on slip behavior of α-Ti under quasi-static loading：a review” under consideration is a review article that summarizes the existing research work on the the dislocation slip behavior of α phase of α, near α and α+β titanium alloys dominated by α-Ti deformation under quasi-static loading mainly combined with in-situ tensile technology. The authors report an interesting approach and the presentation of the work is clear. The objective and justification of the work are clear. The study is accurate and adequate, and thus, I would recommend it for publication in METALS. However, certain Minor issues are detailed below to improve the quality of the manuscript.
· It seems that many of the figures in the manuscript are reproduced from existing papers. I'm not sure whether the authors have obtained proper license to use these figures. Permission to reuse figures from other papers must be explicitly stated in the manuscript to avoid copyright infringement.
· The abstract needs to be revised to attain broad readership.
· English needs to be a little improved, as there are some misused conjunctions and technical flaws to correct in the manuscript.
· Add the list of acronyms or abbreviations.
· Include the table of content in the revised manuscript.
· The homogeneity of the reference section needs to be maintained. So please check and revise accordingly to the journal's instructions.
Author Response
Dear editor and reviewers,
We, the authors, would like to express great gratitude over your letter and the valuable comments from the reviewer on our manuscript. We have learned much from the reviewer’s comments, which are encouraging and constructive. Meanwhile, we take your concerns seriously and try to allay them. After carefully looking through the comments, we have made corresponding changes. Attached is the revised version, we would like to submit for your kind consideration and hope the revised manuscript can be published in Metals.
Thank you very much for your time!
Yours sincerely,
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #3:
The present review manuscript “Research progress on slip behavior of α-Ti under quasi-static loading：a review” under consideration is a review article that summarizes the existing research work on the the dislocation slip behavior of α phase of α, near α and α+β titanium alloys dominated by α-Ti deformation under quasi-static loading mainly combined with in-situ tensile technology. The authors report an interesting approach and the presentation of the work is clear. The objective and justification of the work are clear. The study is accurate and adequate, and thus, I would recommend it for publication in METALS. However, certain Minor issues are detailed below to improve the quality of the manuscript.
It seems that many of the figures in the manuscript are reproduced from existing papers. I'm not sure whether the authors have obtained proper license to use these figures. Permission to reuse figures from other papers must be explicitly stated in the manuscript to avoid copyright infringement.
The abstract needs to be revised to attain broad readership.
English needs to be a little improved, as there are some misused conjunctions and technical flaws to correct in the manuscript.
Add the list of acronyms or abbreviations.
Include the table of content in the revised manuscript.
The homogeneity of the reference section needs to be maintained. So please check and revise accordingly to the journal's instructions.
Response: Thank you for your professional review and appreciation of the paper. Copyrights for these figures have been acquired, please do not worry. The misused conjunctions and technical flaws in the manuscript have been corrected, if there are still errors, please do not hesitate to point them out. The list of acronyms or abbreviations is added after Chapter 4 Summary. The table of content is added before Chapter 1 Introduction. The reference section has been checked and revised.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Recommended for Publication
