Atomistic Investigation of the Effects of Different Reinforcements on Al Matrix Composite
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It seems that this manuscript was prepared by a non-specialist English translator. They are many conceptual and grammar errors in the manuscript that should be corrected.
The tense of the verbs in the whole of the article should be corrected. For example:
"The effect of different reinforcements on metal matrix composite (MMC) is studied here through Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations" should be "The effect of different reinforcements on metal matrix composite (MMC) was studied through Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations"
Therefore, I suggest rewriting the manuscript and after that, I would review it from a scientific point of view.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The effect of 2D (graphene, single and bilayer) and 3D (diamond) reinforcements on Al matrix fabrication modelling powder metallurgy process and the tensile properties of these composites is studied through Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations. The results of the study are interesting.
However, the following changes are recommended to improve the clarity and impact of the article.
1. The authors are to include some discussion about 1D materials as reinforcements (e.g., CNTs) as well in the manuscript. If there are any simulation results from the authors, these are to be added to the manuscript. If not, literature on CNTs as reinforcements (simulation and experimental studies, briefly) are to be added, commented upon in the introduction as well as results and discussion sections.
The authors are to also explain the introduction why they chose 0D and 2D, but have not reported on 1D materials.
2. In the abstract and the main manuscript, the authors have expressed the volumes in nm^3. If these simulation studies are to help experimentalists, wt% and vol% are more relevant metrics. The authors are to include these values in the manuscript.
3. Abbreviations (e.g., MD, SLG, BLG, etc.) are to be defined separately in the abstract and main text separately and used consistently. These abbreviations are used without prior definition in the main text, currently.
4. In the introduction section (after line 73) - the authors are to clarify the purpose of the study. "No comparison between 2D and 3D reinforcements" - but why is this comparison necessary and understanding this comparison will lead to what, how is it intended to help the experimentalists? The authors are to contextualize the current study purpose from the viewpoint of experimental issues.
5. Under model methods - the authors are to explain briefly the powder metallurgy method to help readers without prior knowledge on this subject.
6. In Model methods section - the authors are to explain what is an NPT ensemble. Brief explanations of eam, tersoff and morse potentials in the current context are to be included in this section.
7. After line 124 in results and discussion, a more detailed discussion on powder metallurgy methodology (beyond required in comment 5) is to be included to help readers contextualize the current results.
8.The authors are to add supplementary graphs for Figure 3 or related data - including vol%, wt% and calculated densities. These metrics have more meaning for experimentalists. This data is to be discussed in the results/discussion section.
9. Related to comment 4 - the authors are to contextualise the results from the viewpoint of experimental issues and explain how the current simulations provide directions for the experimental community.
10. The authors are to also include comparison of the current MD results with experimental results/other MD results reported.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is accepted in present form.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thanks for your consideration and comments on our manuscript entitled “Atomistic investigation of the effects of different reinforcements on Al matrix composite” (metals-1755617), and we are very glad to receive your approval. Now, I have modified the paper slightly according to the advice from another reviewer.
I hope this revision can make my paper more acceptable.
Thanks again for your help!
Best regards!
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have not made a sufficient effort to incorporate changes recommended in the first round of peer-review.
Unfortunately, the quality of the paper in terms of flow/continuity of text and quality of English has diminished significantly after revision.
The authors are strongly recommended to seek professional English editing services to improve the understandability and grammatical correctness of the text. There are several errors, which makes the paper quite difficult to read. This includes jumbo sentences with phrases separated by semi-colons (e.g., L86-99), use of informal language ("pretty close" L170) and several typographical errors (e.g., dimentional instead of dimensional)
On the technical/content side of the paper, the following are required to improve the paper quality.
(a) On the addition of description of powder metallurgy description - text added in line 116 is insufficient and unclear. The authors are to explain in the text clearly that there are two steps, mixing and compacting. Give some examples of mixing methods and compacting methods. Also, the reinforcement vol% included by powder metallurgy is usually not large - typically less than 10 vol%. This should be corrected in the text.
(b) L165 - the authors were asked to provide more details on the powder metallurgy process, including simulation. But the authors have retained the text "The powder metallurgy process modeled by MD simulation has been widely reported, so the details such as sintering process will be not discussed minutely in this paper". However, the authors are to include some details - what kind of processes are used for the sintering, what the reported MD simulations of these conditions indicate, etc. in the text. This should be moved to the introduction section.
(c) Line 137: Is it NPT or NTP (normal temperature and pressure) - if it is the latter, please correct with the appropriate acronym and clarify temperature and pressure values in the paper (20 deg C, 1 atm?)?
(d) (Previous review comment 10): The authors have NOT provided any comparison of the current tensile properties results vs. those reported in literature for experimental and simulation studies. Text in line 267 (related to AlSiC) and lines 284-285 are vague and insufficient. The authors are to compare the values and strengthening mechanisms reported in literature with those obtained in the current studies.
(e) Figure S1 - it is surprising (and unrealistic) why the density of the composite would drop with increase in reinforcement wt% and drop in Al content! The authors are to check their calculations on this. Typically, with increase in reinforcement wt%, the densities should drop (even discounting for porosity issues...)!
(f) The contextualization of the results and directions for experimentalists should be added as a separate paragraph prior to the conclusions section.
(g) The density and reinforcement wt% values (once double checked) are to added in the abstract as well as the conclusions section with a brief description of how the current results compare to the literature (summary of the study's implications). Both sections are to be rewritten to contextualise the study in terms of the directions it provides for experimentalists.
On the whole, the paper needs to be significantly improved in clarity and content quality to qualify acceptance.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have attempted to make changes based on previous round of review. However, the paper still needs extensive English language corrections - which seems to be the biggest issue with understanding the paper (and the changes).
The authors are strongly recommended to seek professional English language correction services.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for the comments. This paper has been modified with linguistic assistance from LetPub. We hope that this revision can make my paper more acceptable.
Thanks again for your help!
Best regards!
