Next Article in Journal
A Mechanistic Study on the Anti-Corrosive Performance of Zinc-Rich Polyester/TGIC Powder Coatings
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainability Assessment of the Utilization of CO2 in a Dielectric Barrier Discharge Reactor Powered by Photovoltaic Energy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/pr10091852
Review Report
processes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Study of Plasma Interaction with Liquid Lithium Multichannel Capillary Porous Systems in SCU-PSI

Processes 2022, 10(9), 1852; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10091852
by Jianxing Liu 1, Wenna Jing 1, Hengxin Guo 1, Yingwei Gao 1, Sishu Wang 2, Bo Chen 1, Jianjun Chen 1, Hongbin Wang 1, Jianjun Wei 2, Zongbiao Ye 1,* and Fujun Gou 1,*
Reviewer 1:
Francisco L. Tabares
Reviewer 2:
Fabio Subba
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Processes 2022, 10(9), 1852; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10091852
Submission received: 28 July 2022 / Revised: 8 September 2022 / Accepted: 11 September 2022 / Published: 14 September 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report


Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see my comments in the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

the paper is interesting and the work generally well done.
I would recommend to improve the error treatment in the paper; nowhere an estimantion of the margin of error has been expressed.
Particularly, raw 158-161 pg5 the quantity descibed are difficult to understand with no errors handling.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

See attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the paper can now be accepted

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and comments of our work！

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

From v1 to v2 of the manuscript, the electron densities displayed in figure 3 increased by  a factor of 10 and this was not even mentioned in the author's answer. That is the reason of the apparent disagreement I found in the previous flux calculations. Particle fluxes are directly inferred from the saturation current of the LP, so I wonder how this correction by a factor of 10 took place.

Please, refer to evaporation or excitation (not ionization) curves when citing fig 5.

There were several numerical errors fixed through the review process. Please make sure that all the numbers are correct in the final version!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Please correct: p3. It is mentioned that the maximum density is 1019m3, in contradiction with the data shown in fig 3.

p6. just above fig 5. Please correct, it is not an ionization curve.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your careful examination of our manuscript. We are so sorry for the problem. In case that there is still error in the manuacript, we spent two days to check the manuscript again and again. It is hoped that this edition will meet the requirements of publication.

Back to TopTop