Parametric Assessment of Surface Topography and Its Influence on Joint Tightness of Non-Separable Joints for Thin Wall Applications
, Jolanta Królczyk 2, Mateusz Franka 1, Munish Kumar Gupta 2,*, Marcin Śliwiński 3 and Grzegorz Królczyk 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is well wirtten, and the research content is good. But the English should be improved. The errors should be provides in Figures 11 ~17 . The experimental conditions are not clear and specific. The Abstract should be refined.
Author Response
Response to the Reviewer’s Comments
The authors would like to thanks the Editor and the Reviewers for their valuable comments, times and efforts and for adding perspective to our paper entitled “Parametric assessment of Surface Topography and Its Influence on Joint Tightness of Non-Separable Joints for Thin Wall Applications”. Regarding the reviewer comments, we wish to state the following as responses-explanations-justifications. The related revisions in the manuscript are colored with red. Once again, thank you very much for your work and consideration for our paper. We hope that this revised version is suitable for publication in your esteemed journal.
Sincerely,
Authors
Reviewer #1:
- This paper is well written, and the research content is good. But the English should be improved.
Answer: Thanks for valuable and positive thoughts on our paper. The paper is modified as per your valuable suggestions and the English is improved with the help of native speaker. The responses are given below.
- The errors should be provides in Figures 11 ~17.
Answer: Thank you for advice, all errors in article has now been added for required figures.
- The experimental conditions are not clear and specific.
Answer: Thank you for advice, experimental conditions has been explained in the article.
- The Abstract should be refined.
Answer: Thank you for advice, the abstract has been refined.
Best Regards,
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors investigated the parametric assessment of surface topography and its influence on joint tightness of non-separable joints for thin wall applications. The topic is interesting and match the journal well. I suggest it can be accepted with some minor revisions.
Detailed comments:
1. Introduction：The second paragraph is too long. Two or three parts should be made. Some recent work about the surface topography should be concerned: Friction 9(4): 723–733 (2021); Surface & Coatings Technology 443 (2022) 128637; Tribology International 136 (2019) 267–275ï¼›Surface & Coatings Technology 358 (2019) 353–361
2. 2. Materials and methods：The more detailed testing parameters and testing process should be given. How about the experimental repeatability?
3. 3.2. Influence of different roughness topography and force analysis for leakage detection: The mechanism behind the results should be explained with more details.
4. The format of the references should be updated.
Author Response
Response to the Reviewer’s Comments
The authors would like to thanks the Editor and the Reviewers for their valuable comments, times and efforts and for adding perspective to our paper entitled “Parametric assessment of Surface Topography and Its Influence on Joint Tightness of Non-Separable Joints for Thin Wall Applications”. Regarding the reviewer comments, we wish to state the following as responses-explanations-justifications. The related revisions in the manuscript are colored with red. Once again, thank you very much for your work and consideration for our paper. We hope that this revised version is suitable for publication in your esteemed journal.
Sincerely,
Authors
Reviewer #2:
- Introduction: The second paragraph is too long. Two or three parts should be made.
Answer: Thank you for advice, article has now been improved.
- Some recent work about the surface topography should be concerned:
- Friction 9(4): 723–733 (2021);
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40544-020-0366-3.pdf - Surface & Coatings Technology 443 (2022) 128637;
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0257897222005588 - Tribology International 136 (2019) 267–275ï¼›
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301679X19301677 - Surface & Coatings Technology 358 (2019) 353–361
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0257897218312738
Mateusz: Dopisać co by pasowało i tyle -> recenzent nr 2 Yufu Xu
- Friction 9(4): 723–733 (2021);
Answer: Thank you for advice, the article has been considered and some of them were added.
- Materials and methods: The more detailed testing parameters and testing process should be given.
Answer: Thank you for advice, the idea of testing process has been more explained.
- How about the experimental repeatability
Answer: Thank you for advice, each of the sample was checked 3 times and the representatives was taken.
- Influence of different roughness topography and force analysis for leakage detection: The mechanism behind the results should be explained with more details
Answer: Thank you for advice, the different roughness topography and force analyses has been extended in article, also the mechanism has been explained.
- The format of the references should be updated.
Answer: Thank you for advice, the format has been updated.
Best Regards,
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper’s subject matter is well within the journal topic areas, however there are a number of problems and uncertainties that need the authors’ serious attention, and a significant and majors revision is required before we can assess it again. The following are problem areas:
1. Introduction it’s insufficient a more detail is required.
2. When talking about the materials and methods, the authors should clarify the reason for selecting the compositions that were chosen for their work.
3. 4. This manuscript is mostly a description of the results, and lack of the depth discussion,
5. The manuscript is rather an experimental report. Own results are overrated and not discussed on the basis of comparable studies of other authors.
6. Thorough discussion of achieved results in light of results of other authors.
7. Discussion part is too weak,
8. Please provides a high resolution figures to meet the journal requirement
9. Conclusion: It is too bulky. Make it concise form possibly with some numerical results.
-. Conclusions must be comprehensive and not written like a report.
Author Response
Response to the Reviewer’s Comments
The authors would like to thanks the Editor and the Reviewers for their valuable comments, times and efforts and for adding perspective to our paper entitled “Parametric assessment of Surface Topography and Its Influence on Joint Tightness of Non-Separable Joints for Thin Wall Applications”. Regarding the reviewer comments, we wish to state the following as responses-explanations-justifications. The related revisions in the manuscript are colored with red. Once again, thank you very much for your work and consideration for our paper. We hope that this revised version is suitable for publication in your esteemed journal.
Sincerely,
Authors
Reviewer #3:
- Introduction it’s insufficient a more detail is required.
Answer: Thank you for advice, the introduction has been extended and more articles has been concerned.
- When talking about the materials and methods, the authors should clarify the reason for selecting the compositions that were chosen for their work.
Answer: Thank you for advice, the material and methods has been explained with the reason of selecting the composition.
- This manuscript is mostly a description of the results, and lack of the depth discussion.
Answer: Thank you for advice, the discussion has been added using the reached result
- The manuscript is rather an experimental report. Own results are overrated and not discussed on the basis of comparable studies of other authors.
Answer: Thank you for advice, the discussion has been added in more details.
- Thorough discussion of achieved results in light of results of other authors.
Answer: Thank you for advice, the result has been compared.
- Discussion part is too weak.
Answer: Thank you for advice, the discussion has been extended.
- Please provides a high resolution figures to meet the journal requirement
Answer: Thank you for advice, the high resolution figures has been added.
- Conclusion: It is too bulky. Make it concise form possibly with some numerical results.
Answer: Thank you for advice, the conclusion has been changed and extended.
- Conclusions must be comprehensive and not written like a report
Answer: Thank you for advice, the concise has been improved.
Best Regards,
Authors
