Effect of ZrH2 Doping on Electron Emission Performance of Rare Earth Tungsten Electrode
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with the effect of ZrH2 additives on the electron emission performance of rare earth tungsten electrode (W-La-Y). The manuscript represents a continuation of the authors’ research focused on the obtaining of preliminary information to develop the theoretical basis for the optimization of the property of electrodes in practical applications. The following issues should be clarified and addressed:
1. The letterings in Figure 1 are too small and unclear. The fond should be increased to make the images clearer.
2. The title of Figure 1 should be capitalized.
3. The caption to Figure 2 is “volt-ampere characteristic curves”. However, in fact the Figure is “XRD pattern of the bulk electrode material….”.
4. In Figure 2 in ZrH2, "2" must be in lower case.
5. Figure 3 is "TG-DTA of the mixed powder sample", but not "volt-ampere characteristic curves".
6. The letterings in Figure 9 are also very small and need to be enlarged. The font size in the figures should be the same as in the main text.
7. To what refers footnote "3" in line 271?
8. Degrees centigrade on pages 3 and 4 are designated as "â—‹C", although in the rest of the text "ºC". They should be presented uniformly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper was very hard to read, as, especially at the beginning, topics are mixed without warning and statements without major content.
Introduction is missing two important elements i.e., (i) Hypothesis explanation, and (ii) Novelty statement. These two important mentioning will guide the reader towards the heart of the article. Underscore the scientific value-added to your paper in your abstract. Your abstract should clearly state the essence of the problem you are addressing, what you did and what you found and recommend. That would help a prospective reader of the abstract to decide if they wish to read the entire article. The Introduction is not clear from the review what gaps are identified and what problems are proposed to be addressed. The introduction should be rewritten to clarify the issues identified and your innovations.
1. Recommendations for Introduction:
-Can you please establish the research gap [Please add]
-Please add a data table along with citation in the manuscript considering following points:
(a) Previously used material/leaves of other trees for same purpose (b) New material/leaves of other trees for same purpose to be studied (c) Previously asked Questions (d) Previously used techniques for similar type of research.
-Establish your research questions in this section.
-Update your literature review with more additional references of published work in recent years.
-So, establish a research gap and connect your research methodology, data analysis, results with that research gap and produce a discussion on future directions.
2. Recommendations for Materials and Methods:
-A Comprehensive research framework is missing (flowchart). This portion should be written in step wise pattern so that readers can understand the procedure for implementation purpose. [Please add]
-Also add references(citations) related to applied methodology.
3. Limitations of the study:
-Please add heading about the limitations of the study.
-Suggestion/recommendation to the policy makers must be there and it is responsibility of scientist to device such solution which are practically applicable.
Final suggestions:
-Formulate manuscript according to basic format and headings….
The discussion section is not critical writing. There is no explanation of the findings in the results, no comparison of the results with previous studies, and no new ideas are presented through citations. Have you tried to put the simulations into practice and can the study be proven by the proper functioning?
I recommend the author to check one more time the bibliography, the MDPI standars it is not respected. References to figures must be written starting with a capital letter. Please check this aspect as well.
Best regards,
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in this form.
It is better form.
Congratulations.
