Next Article in Journal
The Use of Autogenous Teeth for Alveolar Ridge Preservation: A Literature Review
Previous Article in Journal
Recent Advances in the Heterologous Biosynthesis of Natural Products from Streptomyces
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Measurement of Amount for Steel Abrasive Material Transported by Special Scraper Conveyor

Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(4), 1852; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041852
by Gabriel Fedorko 1, Jan Nečas 2,3, Jiří Zegzulka 2,3, Daniel Gelnar 3, Vieroslav Molnár 4,* and Marianna Tomašková 5
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(4), 1852; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041852
Submission received: 21 January 2021 / Revised: 12 February 2021 / Accepted: 16 February 2021 / Published: 19 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Mechanical Engineering)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The english language needs to be revised in detail. I would request help of a native english person.

The introduction section can be improved in terms of both number of references cited and information provided in each reference.

The results section is very brief, only saying this Table, this Figure... You should explain why you are giving to the readers those results.

The Discussion section should also be detailed in terms of results analysis, refering specificaly to the Figures and Tables presented in the results section.

Attached follows several comments to be addressed to correct the english language.

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

References are not numbered so it is hard to follow the introduction part.

Fig 2 could have numbers or explanation of various equipment, similar as Fig. 3.

It would be more convenient to have chemical composition of tested materials or specify a standard.

Fig.6 is not necessary, all information could be described in text.

Fig 7 could be blended with Fig 2.

Conclusions should be more specific. In this state, it is more suitable for the discussion chapter.

Discussion chapter should be expanded with in deep explanation in more constructive way.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have performed the suggested reviews. Thank you.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Conclusions is poorly written. The conclusions part should be rewritten from the start. In present form is almost non-existent; it must be completed in such a way as to highlight more clearly the results brought by the research presented in the paper, pointing most important obtained information from the research (each important information starting from next paragraph). Overall, conclusions should be more specific.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop