A Prospective Way to Achieve Ballistic Impact Resistance of Lightweight Magnesium Alloys
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Metals: 1522877
I have following observations:
- Page 2 (Error bookmark not defined) - Please check and correct.
- Please provide and include the profile images of the micrographs shown in Figure 1.
- Please discuss the reason to choose Mg for the present study. What are the benefits of using Mg when compared to other materials. The same should be added in the introduction part of the manuscript.
- Please discuss "The grain refinement through twinning boundaries can increase the CYS, UCS, and hardness of the Mg alloy"... especially when compared to other materials.
- The present results should also be compared with other materials where other materials are used. The present study (in the present form) does not motivate potential reader to adapt present results unless they are compared with the existing literature.
Based on these, i recommend MINOR revision for the present manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Research presented in the paper has specific significance in the ballistic impact resistance of lightweight magnesium alloys. I recommend printing and publishing od the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is more technical than scentific. The manuscript can not be accepted in ts present form due to major comments. It is totally away from the focus of Metals Journl. I recommend the rejection of it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The ABSTRACT section is succinctly presented, quite ambiguous.
Although the subject is interesting and topical, the authors fail to focus on a line of research. In fact, the paper is not structured properly (MATERIAL & METHODS, RESULTS & DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, REFERENCES, etc.).
The INTRODUCTION is quite succinctly presented, but on the whole, it is comprehensive with the state of research in the field, although important discussions are missing and there is not much explanation on the research carried out.
The RESULTS AND DISCUSSION sections are one of the challenging sections to write. It is important to plan this section carefully as it may contain a large amount of scientific data that needs to be presented in a clear and concise fashion. The purpose of a RESULTS section is to present the key results of your research. The meaning of the results might seem obvious to you, but it’s important to spell out their significance for the reader and show exactly how they answer your research questions. All in all, there is no clear interpretation of these RESULTS.
The CONCLUSION section succinctly summarize the major points of the paper and is quite succinctly presented.
The list of bibliographic references are written improperly. I recommend rewriting in accordance with bibliographic requirements.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The article is written on a current topic. But I do not think that the article can be published in this form. I have a few significant comments.
Remark 1. The annotation contains the phrase that magnesium alloy is 100 times more impact resistant than aluminum alloy. But there is no confirmation in the article itself.
Remark 2. The reference to articles [13-16] is surprising, where data are given on the impact of projectiles with different speeds (4 and 5 km/s) on the alloy. How were these speeds obtained, how reliable are these speeds.
Remark 3. I have an error in the downloaded file Error! Bookmark not defined. It is possible that this error appeared when downloading the document. Or is this error in the document itself.
Remark 4 (main). The study requires experimental confirmation. The figures show either other people's studies [19, 25, 26, 31] or schemes. Data or photos of their research are not provided. There is nothing concrete in the conclusions. Does magnesium alloy give any better performance? In what way is the investigated alloy better than previously used alloys.
I think that the article in this form should not be published. A good literature review has been done. But I did not see the work of the authors themselves.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authours did a nice work conecrning modification and careful revision of this manuscript. The manuscript is totally changed to better version to be accpted in its present form.
Reviewer 5 Report
I think that the corrected article can be published. A sufficient number of edits, changes, additions have been made. Added 14 literary sources. Your own links appeared under the picture (previously there were only links to other people's work). Each reference to the literature is given in full, the work can be easily found. I would like to read the work of 2022 [37], but so far I do not have access to it.
