Raster Angle Prediction of Additive Manufacturing Process Using Machine Learning Algorithm

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, different machine learning algorithms are used to predict the raster angle in the FDM manufacturing process, compare the prediction results, and select the appropriate algorithmic model for the determination of the optimal parameters in the manufacturing process. The article has some novelty and standardized language, but some parts of this work should be improved.

（1）    This is a research article rather than a review article, for the abstract should be written to highlight the focus of the research, rather than going over what a raster angle is (which should appear in the introduction section), the abstract section needs to be rewritten to briefly state clearly what the research focus of this article is.

（2）    The effect of the raster angle on the molding of the material (the importance of this parameter) is not mentioned in the introduction, and which aspects of the material's properties are affected during the manufacturing process.

（3）    If the equation is a citation, please indicate the source, and whether y in equation (1), equation (4), and line 181 have the same meaning, and if not, please replace the letter to indicate it.

（4）    In lines 266-269, when comparing the predicted results with the experimental results, the authors show that the RFR model achieves good results, but in Fig. 6, the maximum angular difference is around 10°, so what is the range of allowable error, and does an error of around 10° have a significant effect on material molding.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for finding the article acceptable.

Thanks to your comments and suggestions, the article has become more scientific and organized.

All changes have been made in line with your suggestions.

You can see the changes made to the article in the "track changes manuscript" file.

A separate reply has been written for each of your comments.

The spelling language of the article has been corrected. Support was received from a native English speaker.

Sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

in file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Suggesting to polish the language. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for finding the article acceptable.

Thanks to your comments and suggestions, the article has become more scientific and organized.

Important and innovative aspects of the study were emphasized by adding additions to the introduction section

All changes have been made in line with your suggestions.

You can see the changes made to the article in the "track changes manuscript" file.

A separate reply has been written for each of your comments.

The spelling language of the article has been corrected. Support was received from a native English speaker.

Sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please, refer to the attached document for detailed comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for finding the article acceptable.

Thanks to your comments and suggestions, the article has become more scientific and organized.

All changes have been made in line with your suggestions.

You can see the changes made to the article in the "track changes manuscript" file.

A separate reply has been written for each of your comments.

The spelling language of the article has been corrected. Support was received from a native English speaker.

Sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It can be accepted.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for accepting the article.

Sincerely. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Despite a thorough and comprehensive review process that resulted in detailed comments, it appears that the critical comments have been disregarded. A critical concern remains unaddressed. Moreover, no response is provided for some of the comment. Please refer to the attached file for details.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are very pleased that you saw improvement in the article as a result of the first revision.

During the second revision process, we tried to make changes in line with your suggestions.

I hope the study has met your expectations.

Thanks for your support.

Sincerely.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf