The Effects of Process Parameters on Workpiece Roundness in the Shoe-Type Centerless Grinding Operation for Internal Raceway of Ball Bearings
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript presented a theoretical analysis and experimental approach to investigate the impact of important process parameters on workpiece roundness in the shoe-type centerless grinding of 6208 ball bearings' internal raceway.
There are some issues that must be addressed before considering publication. If the following issues are well resolved, the reviewer believe the significant contribution to studying the influence of important process parameters on workpiece roundness in shoe-type centerless grinding of ball bearing inner raceways.
1. A new analytical method was proposed for assessing the impact of two support mounting angles on workpiece roundness. However, the authors haven't conducted experimental validation or used data to demonstrate the feasibility of this method.
2. When studying the infulence of the offset between the rotational centers of the workpiece and the magnetic drivehead on workpiece roundness, only two different offsets were considered. This does not sufficiently illustrate the impact of offset on workpiece roundness.
3. The formatting of tables in the manuscript is inconsistent. Please consider standardizing the format of all tables.
4. The labeling of the two angles and the center of circle in Figure 1 in the manuscript appears somewhat blurry. Please consider replacing them with clearer annotations.
5. There are symbols in the explanation of Formula 1 that are not present in the formula itself, and there is no corresponding explanation in Formula 10.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
The author is pleased to receive the reviewer's comments. Based on that, the author has made modifications in the revision. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This study is interesting, and the author presented very well experimentation and reliable results. I believe that the results obtained from this study will help researchers working on this subject.
However, the paper needs correction/revision before being accepted.
Most importantly, the author needs to discuss the results compared to the data in the literature and put differences between them so that as a reader we will understand the point of the study. Otherwise, the manuscript will go no further than a technical report.
By the way, there are some grammatical problems in the manuscript. Please check it in terms of grammar and writing.
Please see the attached file where you can find my corrections/comments.
Overall, the manuscript should be accepted after the minor corrections to be published in the Journal of Coatings.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
There are some grammatical problems in the manuscript. Please check it in terms of grammar and writing.
Author Response
The author is pleased to receive the reviewer's comments. Thank you for this comment. Based on that, the author has made modifications in the revision. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
You presented exclusively a solution to an engineering task, your work has a narrow aim. Unfortunately, I didn't see any obvious novelty.
In addition, the manuscript’s title is difficult to understand.
I recommend expanding the literature review.
In general, the work is harmonious, there is a model and experimental results.
In my opinion, your material would be more suitable for another MDPI journal, for example Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing.
Good luck
The manuscript's text requires linguistic revision.
Author Response
The author is pleased to receive the reviewer's comments. Based on that, the author has made modifications in the revision, where the edits are highlighted in yellow. Please write down "Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The author present novel mathematical models for grinding processes of ballbearings. They present interesting findings based on optimization of process parameters utilizing Matlab. The work contains several small errors:
1. Introduction: Sentence two needs a reference.
2. Introduction: Sentence 3 needs reference.
3. Page 1 line 38 reference missing.
4. Page 2 line 45 reference missing.
5. Page 2 line 49 reference missing.
6. Page 2 line 50 reference missing.
7. Page 2 line 53 reference missing
8. Page 2 line 72 reference missing.
9. Figure 1 is shifted 1 line up.
10. Figure 1 caption requires not just reference also a sentence that the image is reprinted with permission and the author needs to get this permission legally.
11. Line 134 wrong symbol, please correct it.
12. English in Header 2.2 is wired please revise it.
13. Matlab software version, and HQ city and country missing (software version, developer, HQ city, country).
14. Device HQ city and country missing.
15. Drivehead or driveheade? Please specify it.
16. Please unify writing style.
17. The author submitted this manuscript to the journal Coatings, I miss some coating related outlook. I would understand the choice of the journal, if the authors would mention potential coatings on this metal substrate, like hardening after processing to reduce wear, e.g. by nitrogen hardening via sputtering1 or other processes2. The authors could mention different processes to allow more citations.
References
(1) Sun, Z.; Khlusov, I. A.; Evdokimov, K. E.; Konishchev, M. E.; Kuzmin, O. S.; Khaziakhmatova, O. G.; Malashchenko, V. V; Litvinova, L. S.; Rutkowski, S.; Frueh, J.; et al. Nitrogen-Doped Titanium Dioxide Films Fabricated via Magnetron Sputtering for Vascular Stent Biocompatibility Improvement. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2022, 626 (xxxx), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2022.06.114.
(2) Sommer, M.; Hoja, S.; Steinbacher, M.; Fechte-Heinen, R. Investigation of Compound Layer Structures after Nitriding and Nitrocarburizing of Quenched and Tempered Steels. HTM J. Heat Treat. Mater. 2021, 76 (3), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1515/htm-2021-0005.
Author Response
The author is pleased to receive the reviewer's comments. Based on that, the author has made modifications in the revision, where the edits are highlighted in yellow. Please see details in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author,
You improved your manuscript, it looks a bit attractive for readers. Please pay your attention to the missed parameters of formulas.
Author Response
The author is pleased to receive the reviewer's comments. Based on that, the author has made modifications in the revision. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
