• Introduction: Needs to add more references and discussion of previous work in the introduction.

• Methodology: It needs improvement in terms of providing the complete matrix of DOE and materials composition.

• Results: Results are not sufficient and not aligned as mentioned in the abstract.

• Discussion: Needs to improve the discussion by comparing previous and current results.

3. Evaluation Criteria

• Originality / Novelty: 2

• Current Relevance to the Field: 2

• Technical Quality: 2

• Clarity of Presentation: 2

• Depth of Research: 2

• The paper presents a novel application of the H-ECMR finishing process with a trochoidal toolpath for enhancing the surface quality of biomaterials. The experimental framework and optimization using DOE, RSM, and Genetic Algorithm are methodologically sound. However, minor revisions are suggested to improve clarity, provide missing equation references, and enhance the explanation of certain figures and technical terms.

• How does the H-ECMR finishing process differ from traditional MFAF and electropolishing in terms of surface roughness and finishing time? Add 1–2 lines.

• What are the specific advantages of using duplex stainless steel (DSS) in this study?

• Why was Central Composite Design (CCD) selected for the DOE, and how were the input variables justified?

• Was the selection of 20 experiments based on a statistical requirement (Eq. 5)? Could a Box-Behnken Design have been more efficient?

• How does the trochoidal radius impact the surface profile more significantly than feed or stepover?

• Why were Rsk (skewness) and Rku (kurtosis) chosen in addition to Ra for surface quality evaluation?

• Are there biomedical standards or studies that support the selection of specific Rsk and Rku values for implant surfaces?

• Were surface profile measurements repeatable across different locations on the sample?

• How was measurement error minimized using the optical profilometer?

• The final Ra reduced by 94.99%. Was this improvement consistent across all samples, or was it an isolated case?

• Could the process be generalized to other biomedical alloys (e.g., Co-Cr, Ti-6Al-4V), or is it specific to DSS?

• Several equations are referenced but not shown (e.g., Eq. 1, Eq. 5). Are these available or missing from the manuscript?

Overall, this is a commendable and well-executed study with practical relevance and strong technical merit. With minor refinements, the paper could be an excellent contribution to the conference.

2. Section-wise Comments

• Introduction: Relevance of topic clearly established.

• Methodology: Include flow diagrams or figures.

• Results: Consider correlating hardness results with weld bead quality or geometry if available,

• Discussion: Include error bars or standard deviations on hardness values to reflect variability and confidence in measurements.

• Bibliography/References: Cite this paper for Taguchi method as reference that will benefit in your paper. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.11.410

• Others:

3. Evaluation Criteria

• Originality / Novelty: 2

• Current Relevance to the Field: 2

• Technical Quality: 2

• Clarity of Presentation: 2

• Depth of Research: 2

• The experimental work and this manuscript are very suitable considering the scope of this conference.

• The experiment is very simple and replicable, which makes this work even more acceptable.

• Selection of material and DOE are well explained.

• Result and discussion are well explained.

• Highly recommended for publication.

Comment: Structural and Technical Clarity Needed

• Check Units & Consistency: Ensure that all pressure and force values derived using Pascal’s Law are properly explained with consistent units throughout. Currently, the brief reference to Pascal’s Law is not well integrated into the development of the prototype and lacks mathematical clarity.
• Lack of Proper Sectioning and Headings: The “Methodology” section combines theoretical explanation, material specification, design strategy, and experimental setup in a disorganized way. It is recommended to split this into sub-sections such as:
  • 2.1 Theoretical Background
  • 2.2 Materials Used
  • 2.3 Design Methodology
  • 2.4 Experimental Setup
  This will improve readability and logical flow.

The manuscript is a well-organized, informative, and timely contribution to the domain of advanced material machining. The emphasis on cost-effectiveness, ease of control, and operational reliability makes this work particularly relevant in industrial contexts requiring precision machining of MMCs. With minor revisions focusing on language clarity, figure inclusion, and reference formatting, I strongly recommended for publication.

3. Evaluation Criteria

• Originality / Novelty: 3

• Current Relevance to the Field: 3

• Technical Quality: 3

• Clarity of Presentation: 3

• Depth of Research: 3

• 1. How can the surface finish and dimensional accuracy of MMCs be consistently improved during non-traditional machining (NTM) processes like AJM or AWJM?

• 2. How do microstructural changes in MMCs during NTM processes affect mechanical properties post-machining?

• 3. What is the effect of varying reinforcement shapes (e.g., whiskers, particulates, fibers) on machinability parameters such as kerf angle, MRR, and surface roughness?

• 4. What are the dominant failure mechanisms (e.g., fiber pull-out, matrix cracking) during machining of MMCs under different cutting environments?

• 5. How does the reinforcement type (fiber vs. particulate), size, and volume fraction influence tool wear and surface integrity in MMCs?

• 6. What are the limitations of traditional machining processes when applied to MMCs, and how can these be quantified experimentally?

• Originality / Novelty: 3

• Current Relevance to the Field: 2

• Technical Quality: 2

• Clarity of Presentation: 3

• Depth of Research: 3

• 1. The presentation of the paper needs to be upgraded. Please highlight the motivation followed by the contribution as bullet points in the introduction section, at the last of the introduction section should be the insight into how the manuscript is oriented.

• 2. The related work section can be improved. Requesting to cite the following manuscript:
1. Pal, M., Panja, A.K., Mukherjee, A., Mondal, S. and Basu, A., 2024. A framework for optimal agent deployment and opportunistic routing in flying Ad-Hoc networks for precision weather forecasting. Measurement and Control, p.00202940241304568.

• 3. Bibliography is not in proper format. More paper needs to be cited.

• 4. Proper citation of all figures and tables should be done.

• 5. Figure 1 quality needs to be improved.

3. Evaluation Criteria

• Originality / Novelty: 3

• Current Relevance to the Field: 3

• Technical Quality: 3

• Clarity of Presentation: 3

• Depth of Research: 3

• Experimental Methodology

1.1 Please provide detailed specifications of the experimental setup, including:

• Tool geometry and materials,
• Workpiece dimensions,
• Clamping and fixture arrangement.

1.2 What were the specific ranges and intervals used for each key parameter (rotational speed, traverse speed, axial force, tilt angle)?

1.3 How many trials were conducted for each parameter configuration? Were replicates used to ensure statistical validity?

1.4 Could you include the numerical results for tensile, flexural, and impact strength tests conducted?

1.5 Was there any validation or correlation analysis performed between the experimental and computational results? If so, please share the error metrics (e.g., RMSE, MAE, R²).

• Computational Modelling and Simulation

2.1 Please specify the simulation tools/software used (e.g., ANSYS, Abaqus) and material modeling techniques.

2.2 What boundary conditions, meshing strategies, and solver settings were applied in the FEA?

2.3 How was fibre-matrix interaction represented within the simulation? Were any simplifications or assumptions made?

2.4 Was a convergence or sensitivity study performed to validate the robustness of the simulation model?

2.5 Please clarify whether the computational outputs were directly compared with experimental results, and if so, how agreement or deviation was quantified.

• Statistical and Optimization Framework

3.1 Could you provide tabulated ANOVA results, including F-values, p-values, and regression statistics?

3.2 Machine learning (ML) and neural networks are briefly mentioned. Were these implemented in the current study or are they only discussed as future work?

• Data Presentation and Visual Evidence

4.1 Several figures (e.g., from Springer sources) are referenced. Could the authors include original graphical results—such as parameter response plots, SEM images, or FEA visualizations?

• Scientific Contribution and Novelty

5.1 The study is described as a “hybrid approach.” Please elaborate on the integration process between experimental and computational domains. Was there a feedback loop or iterative refinement?

• 📌 Summary Recommendation (For Editor Only): The manuscript presents a valuable synthesis of recent developments in FSW for GFRP. However, clarification and expansion of experimental details, modeling parameters, and optimization results are needed to validate the claimed hybrid methodology and enhance reproducibility.

• Introduction – Deficiencies:

The introduction blends background and literature, which should be clearly separated.

It lacks a concise statement on the specific scope, novelty, and contribution of this review.

• Methodology (of Review)

Strengths:

The authors describe their structure well by categorizing the literature across different approaches (experimental, computational, hybrid).

Deficiencies:

The methodology for conducting the review itself is missing. A proper review article should briefly mention:

• Literature search strategy (databases used, keywords, time period).
• Selection criteria (inclusion/exclusion).
• Number of studies reviewed.

Without this, the rigor and reproducibility of the review process are unclear.

• Results (Literature Synthesis) – Deficiencies:

The review includes only 20 references, which is inadequate for a proper review paper in engineering or materials science. A robust review should include at least 80–100 scholarly sources.

The analysis of the cited literature is largely descriptive, not critical. There is no comparative discussion, identification of contradictions, or evaluation of research progress.

No synthesis tables, trend graphs, or visual summaries are presented.

• Discussion – Deficiencies:

No standalone Discussion section is provided.

The paper does not critically analyze the reviewed literature to:

• Identify current challenges or gaps.
• Compare different modeling or experimental strategies.
• Suggest research directions or standardization needs.

This seriously weakens the intellectual contribution of the paper.

• Final Recommendation: (Rating 4 – Poor)

❌ Reject

Reason for Rejection: This manuscript does not meet the minimum standards for a review article in its current form. The lack of a systematic review methodology, insufficient number of reviewed studies (only 20), and absence of analytical depth make it unsuitable for publication. For a quality review paper, the authors must consider analyzing at least 80–100 peer-reviewed sources, include a structured synthesis, and clearly identify research trends, gaps, and future directions.

• The authors can grade up the paper by providing more discussion on the numerical method and the innovation of the method used in the manuscript.

• The reason for the selection of the model should be clearly stated to satisfy readers regarding the validation of the numerical method.

• Real-time Validation: Although ML models show good predictive capabilities, real-time validation (e.g., using sensor feedback) is absent. Consider integrating adaptive or real-time systems for enhanced robustness in future work.

• Dataset Limitation: The dataset includes only 20 samples with skewed parameter variation (e.g., fixed feed rate). This limits generalizability. Consider conducting a broader DOE or include synthetic data generation methods.

• Reference Inclusion (Materials): Include findings from "Development and wear resistivity performance of SiC and TiB₂ particles reinforced novel aluminium matrix composites". This reference will offer contrastive insight into conventional materials vs. the EN31 alloy and support the relevance of your sustainable approach in broader material contexts.

• Optimization Techniques: The paper lacks discussion on advanced optimization techniques. Include the approach from "Optimizing wire-cut EDM parameters through evolutionary algorithm: a study for improving cost efficiency in turbo-machinery manufacturing". This could enrich the methodology section, particularly regarding how optimization algorithms could be combined with machine learning.

• Cooling Technique Comparison: Although CO₂-assisted MQL is discussed, the comparison with other hybrid cooling techniques is missing. Incorporate "Exploring cryo-MQL medium for hard machining of hastelloy C276: a multi-objective optimization approach" to situate your research within current cryogenic machining advances.

• Microstructure Analysis: The paper is purely data-driven and does not analyze microstructure or tool-wear patterns. Include qualitative insights or refer to studies like "Assessment of Microstructure and Investigation Into the Mechanical Characteristics and Machinability of A356 Aluminum Hybrid Composite Reinforced with SiCp and MWCNTs..." to emphasize the link between cooling technique and microstructural changes.

• Decision-Making Comparison: The authors should compare their machine learning approach with multi-criteria decision-making methods like the one in "Study of Microstructural, Machining and Tribological Behaviour of AA-6061/SiC MMC Fabricated Through the Squeeze Casting Method and Optimized... by Using Standard Deviation-PROMETHEE Technique". This can offer insight into decision frameworks beyond predictive models.

• Grey-Fuzzy Techniques: A parallel comparison between predictive models and grey-fuzzy techniques used in "Wear resistivity of Al7075/6wt.% SiC composite by using grey-fuzzy optimization technique" should be added. This will enrich the justification for using ML in sustainability-focused machining.

• Hybrid Composite & Optimization Alignment: The study can be strengthened by including "A grey-fuzzy based multi-response optimisation study on the friction and wear characteristics of titanium diboride reinforced aluminium matrix composite" to show how hybrid composites and optimization techniques align with sustainability.

• Heat Generation Insight: Add discussion on heat generation and its correlation with surface quality, referring to "Study of heat generation and its effect during submerged arc welding (SAW) on mild steel plate at zero degree Celsius plate temperature". This will support the relevance of cooling strategies beyond machining rates.

• Feature Importance Analysis: Despite using machine learning, the paper does not provide feature importance analysis. Consider using SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) or permutation importance to explain how input features influence predictions.

• Figure Enhancements: Figures like Figure 3 and 4 should include confidence intervals or residual plots. Also, box plots for error distribution across models would provide better insight into performance variation.

This is a well-structured and insightful conclusion section that ties together the physical mechanisms of FSSW with practical process optimizations. It not only affirms experimental findings but also recommends a viable direction for future development in thermal modeling and energy-efficient design. So, I recommend the manuscript for publication after minor revisions addressing the following points:

• Quantitative Support: Include some quantitative references to support each observation (e.g., % increase in power per 1000 rpm or mm/min).

• Material Specificity: Clarify the role of material types — are these conclusions generalizable across aluminum alloys, steels, etc.?

• Data Visualization: Provide error bars on key experimental data (e.g., torque, temperature).

• Wording Check: Is it correct to use “tool and patient” in the conclusion part? If not, then correct it.

• Modeling Insight: Expand slightly on how predictive modeling could be implemented.

1. General Comment

• Minor Grammatical mistake: Check line by line.

• Others: Abstract 1st line change

3. Evaluation Criteria

• Originality / Novelty: 2

• Current Relevance to the Field: 2

• Technical Quality: 2

• Clarity of Presentation: 3

• Depth of Research: 3

• In a review paper, it is essential to include a section dedicating the current research trends and propose some future scopes. These aspects are currently missing in the paper.

• Permissions should be taken for all the reused images.

• Recent references should be cited.

The experimental work is a good fit for this conference. I want to mention a few things though:

• Introduction: The section lacks proper citations. Adding relevant references would strengthen the context and motivation.
• Methodology: The methodology is sound, but including tribological tests would enhance the reliability and completeness of the experimental study.
• Application Discussion: As this is an experimental work and many aspects of natural fiber composites are already highlighted in the abstract, any further elaboration on applications or potential scope seems redundant.
• Cost Analysis: The author might consider adding a section on cost comparison with other materials used for similar applications. Since GNP (Graphene Nanoplatelets) is not an off-the-shelf material, the justification of fabrication cost versus performance is not clear.

Overall Rating: 2 = Good

The work is good and well explained. May enhance certain picture qualities and check for any typo.

Originality: 1

Relevance to the Field: 2

Technical Quality: 2

Clarity of Presentation: 2

Depth of Research: 1

This paper presents a well-conceived and practically validated design of a smart, single-axis solar tracking system integrated with environmental sensing and intelligent lighting. The system leverages light-dependent resistors (LDRs) for solar tracking and DHT11 sensors for temperature and humidity monitoring, all managed by an Arduino UNO microcontroller. The integration of energy-efficient LEDs and autonomous control further enhances the system’s utility for off-grid applications.

2. Section-wise Comments

• Introduction: The authors demonstrate a clear understanding of the current challenges in solar energy harvesting, particularly in fixed-panel configurations, and address them through a modular, low-cost, and scalable design. Experimental results show a 30% increase in energy generation compared to fixed panels, with reliable lighting operation and responsive tracking accuracy.

• Methodology: The work is well-supported by a literature review, structured methodology, and performance evaluation. Future extensions such as IoT integration and predictive control are suggested, aligning with ongoing trends in smart renewable energy systems.

3. Evaluation Criteria

• Originality / Novelty: 2

• Current Relevance to the Field: 2

• Technical Quality: 2

• Clarity of Presentation: 3

• Depth of Research: 2

• Title Refinement: Consider rephrasing the title slightly to better highlight the innovation—e.g., “Smart Energy Optimization for Educational Buildings Using Machine Learning: A Case Study at IEM Management House.”

• Abstract Clarity: The abstract is informative but could be condensed slightly for better readability. Also, ensure grammatical consistency (e.g., “resulting a 38% reduction” → “resulting in a 38% reduction”).

• Figures and Tables: Some tables (e.g., Table 01, Table 03) appear dense and could benefit from improved formatting or visualization (e.g., bar graphs) for better readability and impact.

• Model Interpretation: A brief explanation of why the hybrid CNN-LSTM model outperformed others would be insightful. You may elaborate on how spatial and temporal dependencies were captured effectively.

• Discussion Section: While the results are strong, the discussion could benefit from a comparison with more baseline models or previous works (beyond LSTM/CNN), as well as practical implementation challenges (e.g., hardware or maintenance).

• 1. Page 2, Line 7: "Nevertheless, numerous issues remain to be addressed, especially regarding wrought magnesium alloys ...............". Justify relevance of the statement in present article.

• 2. Page 2, Line 17: "The manufacturing processes of aluminum matrix composites .......................... powder metallurgy, and spark" — repetition in next lines. Kindly rectify.

• 3. Page 4, Table 1: Point 7 can be merged to point 3. Point 8 can be merged to point 2.

• 4. Heading 3, 'Enhancing the efficiency and precision of stir casting' doesn't reflect the content presented under the heading. Rectify the heading.

• 5. Heading 5, 'Optimization of Stir Casting Parameters' does not present any optimization techniques or results.

• 6. Heading 6, 'AI and ML Applications of Stir-Cast Aluminum Matrix Composites' — How AI and ML is used in the content? Kindly justify.

• 7. Page 10, Line 1: "The application of the design of experiments (DOE) and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation (e.g., FLUENT software) can help improve process optimization" — vague statement. How CFD is helping in optimization of Stir Casting Process? Explain.

• 8. The article presents properties, process parameters, and applications of AMCs fabricated by Stir Casting. The title highlights optimization, which is not evident in the entire article. Kindly rectify.

• 9. The properties and optimizations must be supported with relevant images. Simple writing does not provide any technical transferable knowledge. The article must be modified accordingly.

• Citation Style: Starting a sentence with a citation is not a standard practice. Instead, {Author et al. []} is recommended.

• Introduction Clarity: The introduction should contain the gap in the literature and the objectives of the present study clearly.

• Scope Alignment: How is this work aligned to industrial engineering, mechanical power, or manufacturing?

• Image Quality: The pictures must be modified. The cropped images are not recommended for equations, flow charts, and data tables.

• Writing Flow: A continuous flow in writing is missing. The discrete presentation of the literature and results should be avoided.

• Authors are advised to include specific research questions or hypotheses that are not explicitly mentioned.

• Authors are advised to check any standard research paper and modify the introduction section where they mention the previous work. For example, phrases like "[1] improves power system..." are incorrectly written and need to be revised. All such references should be rewritten properly.

• Authors have included reference no. 1 and 2 multiple times. This redundancy can be avoided by merging the major outputs from those papers and referring to them collectively.

• Research gaps need to be mentioned specifically to highlight the motivation and novelty of the study.

• Confirm whether Fig. 1, 3, 5, and 6 are original. If not, proper sources must be cited.

• In Fig. 2, an equation and a table are included. These should be separated and referred to as an equation and a table respectively, not as a figure.

• All equations should be properly numbered and referenced in the manuscript.

• Tables must not be included as screenshots. They should be editable, properly formatted, and treated as tables, not figures.

• Include specific application areas or problem domains that have been evaluated in the study.

• Mention the key performance indicators (KPIs) used for comparison of methods or results.

• Briefly state one or two key findings or metrics to illustrate the practical advantage of the proposed methods.

• The future scope should be concise. A lengthy future scope section may raise concerns about the completeness of the current work.

• HSV Threshold Explanation: The HSV threshold values and morphological operations are well described. However, add a short explanation of why those HSV ranges were chosen (referenced or empirically derived?).

• Grid Segmentation: The 23-grid method is novel but underexplained. Clarify: Why 23 grids? How uniform are the segments? Are edge effects considered?

• Benchmarking Green Cover: Explain how the detected green cover was benchmarked against UN/WHO/URDPFI guidelines. Was it per capita, or % area?

• Figure Quality: Improve resolution and clarity of figures.

• Formatting: Use proper format.

• 1. Presentation Improvement: The presentation of the paper needs to be upgraded. Please highlight the motivation followed by the contribution as bullet points in the introduction section. At the end of the introduction, there should be an insight into how the manuscript is oriented.

• 2. Related Work Enhancement: The related work section can be improved. Requesting to cite the following manuscript:
1. Pal, M., Panja, A.K., Mukherjee, A., Mondal, S. and Basu, A., 2024. A framework for optimal agent deployment and opportunistic routing in flying Ad-Hoc networks for precision weather forecasting. Measurement and Control, p.00202940241304568.

• 3. Methodology Numbering: Proposed Methodology has no numbering.

• 4. Citation Formatting: Proper citation of all figures and tables should be done.

• 5. Flow Chart: Flow chart (Figure 1) needs correction.

• 6. DRL Agent: Explain the working of the DRL agent.

• How can health advice be customised according to behavioural pattern in this particular study?

• Is it possible to develop a linear relationship between self-reported activity and actual movement explaining the trend of the scattered plot?

• Can the author suggest how data analytics can be integrated with AI-powered health monitoring systems for non-invasive and economical diagnosis.

The article has several drawbacks that need to be addressed for it to be considered for the conference:

• No papers are referred to in the text.

• No results are shown.

• It is not clear whether the authors have performed experiments or modelling.

• The abstract and conclusion are not in line.

This work may only be considered if all the above points are addressed adequately.

The idea is promising. However, the following issues need addressing:

• The article is not formatted according to any standard template.

• The data presented in tables and the calculations are not explained.

• Although the idea looks good, no mathematical formulation is given.

• Conclusion is vague with no definite takeaways.

The manuscript needs major revision for consideration.

• Clarify Diagrams: Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 5.1 are referred to, but actual labeled illustrations are missing or poorly integrated. Please embed clear system diagrams and ensure all figures have consistent formatting and captions.

• Improve Technical Depth: Add more technical details on:
– Cloud communication structure
– Security of data transmission
– Power consumption or scalability considerations

• Formatting & Language: There are numerous small formatting issues (extra line breaks, inconsistent spacing, spelling like “Stratergies”). It’s recommended to review the document carefully and polish grammar and style for better readability.

• Expand Comparison Analysis: A comparative table showing differences in time efficiency, accuracy, and ease of use between manual, barcode, biometric, and RFID-based systems would greatly enhance the impact of your analysis.

• References: Most importantly, the references need to be from recent literature — 2020 onwards.

• Clarity and Language: Consider revising the manuscript for grammar and clarity. Some sentences are lengthy and could be broken up for better readability. Ensure technical terms are consistently defined and explained.

• Figures and Data: Include more diagrams, plots, or tables to visually represent the antenna design, optimization process, and simulation results. For instance, add return loss (S11) curves, radiation patterns, and a schematic of the antenna.

• Comparative Analysis: Provide a brief comparison of the optimized antenna's performance with conventional designs or with results from other optimization algorithms (if available). This will help contextualize the improvements achieved through ACO.

• Algorithm Implementation: Expand on the Python implementation details of the ACO algorithm. Specify parameter values used (number of ants, iterations, pheromone evaporation rate, etc.) and discuss convergence behavior.

• Application Scope: While the conclusion mentions potential applications, consider elaborating on how the optimized antenna could be integrated into real-world systems or compared to industry standards.

• References: Ensure all references are formatted consistently and include recent, relevant literature to support the methodology and claims.

Query 1: Introduction cannot have questions. The author can address the three areas.

Query 2: Cost-effective scalability for small applications. What does the author intend to say?

Query 3: The present investigation. It would be better represented as the present study.

Query 4: Figure 1 shows the overall flowchart of the methodology used in this research, starting with the preliminary field, observation, going through the chamber design, till experimental verification and ultimate data analysis. What does the author mean by till experimental verification?

Query 5: Instead of experimental method, it can be better written as Materials and Methods. Ripening is affected by ethylene gas. What is the source of the ethylene gas? A detailed description of the sensors is required. Is Carbon dioxide also an essential component of mango ripening? If so, nothing is mentioned about Carbon Dioxide.

Query 6: In Fig 5, it shows a steady flow from 6-18 hrs, from 18-24 hrs an exponential nature and after 24 hours, a steady decline. Why is it so?

Query 7: Visual outcomes of the ripening process. How can a visual outcome justify that the mango has ripened fully inside? Spectroscopic techniques that measure the change in the pigment color can be utilized to evaluate the ripening process.

Query 8: A subsection entitled limitaions and Improvements can be introduced. ripening process

How far neural network model is successful in predicting global temperature anomalies using historical data on atmospheric CO2 levels?

Can this model cater real- time noisy data?

Can this model be used to predict other weather parameters like humidity, wind speed, air pressure, sunlight, and rainfall?

Comment: Methodology and Presentation Issues

• Unclear Transition of Methods: The manuscript abruptly shifts from vehicle identification and counting to adaptive traffic light control using “image matching techniques” without clearly explaining how vehicle detection data informs signal control decisions. A logical connection between detection and actuation mechanisms should be established.
• Incoherent Sentence Structures: Example: “There is a chance that patients could die because an ambulance does not have the most up-to-date medical equipment.” This conflates unrelated issues—traffic-induced delays and insufficient medical equipment. Rewriting for clarity and contextual relevance is necessary.
• Disconnected Figures and Text: Figures are referenced (e.g., Figure 4.1.1.(i)) but are not visible or explained clearly. Ensure that each figure is properly captioned and directly referenced with an explanation in the text for reader understanding.

1. General Comment

• The paper lacks a comparative analysis with existing digital twin platforms—adding this would strengthen the contribution.

• The technical details of how AI algorithms are implemented or trained are insufficient and need elaboration.

• While the architecture is described conceptually, a detailed system diagram or workflow would help readers better understand Model Z's structure.

• The paper would benefit from quantitative performance results to support claims of real-time synchronization and predictive capabilities.

• Add a labeled figure showing hardware interconnections and cloud synchronization flow.

• Expand the discussion on Firebase security rules, potential vulnerabilities, and mitigation strategies (e.g., OAuth 2.0, HTTPS, JWTs).

• Include stress testing or simulation results (or at least a discussion) on how the system performs with multiple nodes/devices.

2. Section-wise Comments

• Introduction: The introduction clearly outlines the motivation behind integrating ESP8266 with Firebase for IoT-based automation. It effectively highlights the limitations of traditional control systems and establishes the relevance of the proposed solution. However, the section could be improved by more explicitly stating the novelty of the approach and briefly mentioning how it aligns with digital twin concepts, as implied in the title. A stronger linkage between the problem statement and project objectives would enhance clarity and impact.

• Methodology: The section would benefit from more technical depth, such as flowcharts or pseudocode, to better illustrate the control flow and decision-making processes. Including timing details or update intervals could also improve clarity on system responsiveness.

• Results: However, the section could be strengthened by including quantitative data (e.g., response time metrics, success rates, or latency measurements) to provide measurable evidence of system performance.

• Discussion: This section could be enhanced by comparing the proposed system more directly with existing solutions and suggesting concrete strategies to overcome identified limitations.

• Bibliography/References: Include more recent papers (2022–2024) to reinforce novelty and demonstrate awareness of the latest advancements.

• The authors can grade up the paper by providing more discussion on the numerical method and the innovation of the method used in the manuscript.

• The reason for the selection of the model should be clearly explained to satisfy readers regarding the validation of the numerical method.

• More discussions about the verification of the numerical results are necessary to strengthen the credibility of the study.

• The manuscript, while innovative in concept, exhibits a few notable weaknesses that warrant attention.

• The language and grammar need refinement, as several sections feature awkward phrasing that impacts clarity and professional tone.

• Visual elements such as figures and diagrams are only lightly referenced, lacking explanatory captions or effective integration into the narrative, which diminishes their interpretive value.

• The simulation-based validation, though indicative, limits experimental credibility without complementary empirical testing.

• Additionally, inconsistencies in referencing style and occasional gaps in citation completeness detract from the manuscript’s academic rigor.

• Lastly, while the theoretical model rooted in Snell’s law is promising, its mathematical exposition could benefit from more transparent stepwise derivation and clearer variable definitions to ensure reproducibility for future readers.

• Introduction: Discuss the research gap, the pros and cons, and also how using such glass slabs would enhance the cost of the entire system significantly.

• Methodology: A pictorial presentation of the developed system would make the work more appealing.

• Results: A comparison showing how the use of multiple concentrator layers would increase the cost and heat generation in percentage is required.

• Discussion: New technologies are emerging for cleaning dust accumulation over PV panels. Using multiple layers of glass above it—will that not make cleaning more difficult? Kindly discuss.

• References: The references could have been arranged better when referred to in the text body.

• Originality: 3

• Relevance to the Field: 2

• Technical Quality: 2

• Clarity of Presentation: 3

• Depth of Research: 2

Introduction: 06

Methodology: 05

Results: 05

Discussion: 04

References: 05

The article does not reflect any scientific value. It is just a demonstration of an app. No technical data was presented. The manuscript is most suitable as an advertisement for the app rather than any technical article.

2. Section-wise Comments

• Introduction: No literature is presented. Just a vague futuristic description about the app is provided. Introduction must be re-written.

• Methodology: The methodology is not concise. Most of the information presented lacks technical information. The methodology section must comprise of technical details of the app.

• Results: No real data is presented as results.

• Discussion: Inadequate results lead to insignificant discussion.

• Bibliography/References: Inadequate

• Mention major challenges currently affecting coconut farmers in tropical regions, as identified in the study.

• How does the AGROGUIDE mobile application contribute to enhancing coconut farming practices? Highlight at least three core functionalities.

• How does image processing component within AGROGUIDE support farmers in crop management?

• Proper explanations are provided for the role and impact of weather-based irrigation scheduling in the AGROGUIDE app. How did this feature influence water usage during initial field trials?

• List and describe the three primary coconut varieties discussed in the paper. What are the distinguishing characteristics of each?

• How does the community forum within AGROGUIDE facilitate knowledge exchange and collaboration among coconut farmers?

• In what specific ways does AGROGUIDE help bridge the gap between conventional coconut farming practices and modern agri-technological solutions? Discuss properly

• Experimental Rigor: The paper is weak in experimental rigor.

• Dataset Description: Lack of detailed dataset description (source, volume, time span, location).

• Preprocessing & Feature Selection: No mention of data preprocessing techniques or feature selection methods.

• Algorithm Details: Missing algorithmic details—how were the models tuned?

• Title Correction: Typo in the title – “PREDICATION” should be corrected to “PREDICTION.”

• Motivation: Lacks a clear motivation tied specifically to tourism applications.

• While the manuscript presents a well-motivated and practically grounded prototype for EV–microgrid integration, its most significant weakness lies in poor manuscript quality and editing rigor.

• Numerous typographical errors, fragmented sentences, and repeated content undermine the clarity and professionalism of the work.

• These lapses diminish the impact of the technical contributions and suggest a lack of thorough proofreading.

• Furthermore, the absence of comparative performance metrics against established benchmarks limits the strength of the validation claims, leaving the reader uncertain about the prototype’s real-world competitiveness.

Introduction: 06

Methodology: 05

Results: 04

Discussion: 05

References: 04

• Introduction: It is good, but please provide a reference number for the work by "Geetharamani and Pandian." Also, remove the red colon after "keyword."

• Methodology: A pictorial presentation in the form of a flowchart would make the work more appealing.

• Results: Good.

• Discussion: May make it more precise.

• References: May add a few more.

• Originality: 2

• Relevance to the Field: 2

• Technical Quality: 2

• Clarity of Presentation: 3

• Depth of Research: 2

The manuscript titled: Recent Advances in the Use of R455A and R457A with Nanofluids in Refrigeration: A Comprehensive Review

The manuscript provides a valuable summary of current research on low-global warming potential (GWP) refrigerants coupled with nanofluid technologies. The topic is timely and relevant, particularly given the growing emphasis on sustainable thermal systems. The review is generally well-structured, and the abstract gives a clear snapshot of the work.

However, several minor revisions are recommended to enhance its academic rigor and clarity:

• The introduction could be expanded to include a more detailed rationale for selecting R455A and R457A, supported by comparative data with other low-GWP refrigerants.
• In the literature review sections, while key studies are cited, a deeper critical analysis of methodologies, limitations, and performance trade-offs between R455A and R457A is needed.
• Graphical summaries or tabulated comparisons would also enhance readability.
• Additionally, standardizing the use of technical terms and improving language consistency throughout the paper would improve the overall quality.

With these minor but important revisions, the paper would make a stronger contribution to the field of sustainable refrigeration.

Introduction: 05

Methodology: 06

Results: 05

Discussion: 04

References: 05

• Overall the paper is well written. Some minor corrections are listed below:

• In Figure 2(a), the label "Outlet" at the right-hand side can be written in the same orientation as on the left-hand side. Currently, both are written in reverse direction.

• In Figure 2(b), for the y-axis label "GCI", the offset from the axis should be increased for better readability.

• On page 5, the phrase "the the values" appears, which should be corrected to "the values".

Manuscript Status: Accepted

Review Ratings:

• Originality: 3
• Relevance to the Field: 4
• Technical Quality: 3
• Clarity of Presentation: 3
• Depth of Research: 3

This is a well-written and timely manuscript that addresses an important challenge in geothermal power generation—how to recover waste heat efficiently using an environmentally responsible working fluid. The idea of using a CO₂–propane mixture is both innovative and practical, and the authors do a good job explaining the trade-offs involved in selecting the right composition.

The modeling approach is clear, and the results are meaningful, especially the identification of an optimal turbine inlet pressure.

That said, a few small changes could make the paper even stronger:

• Improving the clarity and labeling of the system schematic in Fig. 1 would help readers follow the setup more easily.
• It would also be useful to explain a bit more about how key properties—like flammability limits and critical temperatures—were determined.
• Adding a brief comparison to other working fluids explored in recent studies could help put the findings in context.
• There are also a few places where the language could be made smoother or more precise.
• And while the conclusion summarizes the work well, a sentence or two about possible next steps or future improvements (like validation or cost analysis) would make the study feel more complete.

Overall, this is a solid and relevant contribution that would benefit from some light polishing before publication.

Comments are:

• There are many typos found.

• Authors should work on the organization of the paper.

• Reference style needs to be checked.

• Enhance Quantitative Data: Include more quantitative results on the mechanical strength, water resistance, and biodegradability of the fabricated bowls compared to conventional plastic or other bio-based alternatives. This will substantiate claims of superior performance and sustainability.

• Clarify Figures and Tables: Ensure that all figures (especially CAD models, FEM results, and photographs of the prototype and final product) are clearly labeled and referenced in the text. Consider adding tables summarizing key design and performance metrics.

• Discuss Limitations and Future Work: Expand on the challenges encountered, such as scalability, long-term durability, and optimization of material blends. Outline specific future research directions or potential improvements to the machine and process.

• Language and Formatting: Review the manuscript for grammatical errors, sentence structure, and consistency in terminology. Improved language and formatting will enhance readability and professionalism.

• Broader Impact and Applications: Briefly discuss the potential for adapting the technology to other agricultural residues or product types (e.g., plates, packaging materials), and its implications for rural economies and environmental policy.

The article discusses the fabrication of a corn husk bowl-making machine. Depending on bore cylinder diameter and pressing pressure of the machine, the required force, power and productivity are calculated. The design considers MS as the material for the C-section and related stress analysis is performed. The title is interesting but the presentation of results is poor. At this current form, this paper cannot be accepted. The comments on the paper are as follow,

• Affiliation of Author 6 is missing.
• In Abstract section few, sentences are too long which makes it difficult to understand the technical meaning. These sentences can be written in short.
• In Abstract section, the authors claim that the machine is inexpensive but cost involvement is neither provided nor compared with other machines. So, how the authors claim it!!
• From the structure of the sentences, the reviewer feels that the write-up is AI-generated.
• Literature review should be an integral part of the introduction section. For this, no separate section is required.
• The citation of literature in text is incorrect. Somewhere it is 'Wang et al. (2022)' and somewhere is '[1]'. Sometimes it is 'Kumar A & Patel N et al. (2021)'. Need to be corrected as per the manuscript guidelines of the conference.
• The cited literatures in text and References section are invalid and not found in the existing literature database. How!!
• How the existing works are connected to the current work. Needs to be mentioned at the end of the literature review section to define the novelty of the current work.
• The second box of the Fig. 1, it is written 'selection of raw material', but for which component?
• Fig 1, about Flowchart of the methodology is confusing. How 'Design of equipment' comes first before 'Selection of raw material for cup'??
• The processing of raw material of the cup i.e. corn husk is not mentioned. Needs to be there.
• Equations should be written in MS Word Equation Editor.
• What is 'Q = Air flow rate / 60000'???
• Correct "Area = 1.963*10^3*m^2'", "Q = 20/60000 = 3.33*10^4*m^3/s".
• What is 'Tc' defining?
• Show the assembly of the machine on enlarged scale. Should be placed Design Calculation section.
• Which part is C-section in the assembly? Needs to be shown.
• C-section needs to be drawn clearly in a separate figure with proper dimensioning. As the interpretation of the dimensions are important for clear understanding of bending stress calculation.
• Why the figures in CAD Modeling section is numbered as Fig 3.1, Fig 3.2......Are the figures belong to section 3??? Need clarification.
• In FEM Analysis section no information of is provided. -How the load is applied? What are the boundary constraints and where do they appear? Furnish thorough information about these.

At this stage the paper needs MAJOR REVISION. Addressing the above-mentioned points may change the reviewer's initial assessment.

Comment:

A lot of work has been done on remote sensing of Mangrove ecosystems. What is the uniqueness of this work?

Beyond pixel-based approaches, object-based image analysis (OBIA) and knowledge-based approaches are frequently used for mangrove mapping and monitoring using remote sensing data. A comparative study between these three approaches would have given an idea about why this particular method was chosen?

The manuscript may be accepted in present form.

2. Section-wise Comments

• Introduction: Introduction is well written.

• Methodology: Methods are well explained.

• Results: The results are shown nicely and well explained.

• Discussion: The discussion is containing the Scientific and Engineering depth.

• Bibliography/References: The references are arranged properly.

1. In the introduction, the research gaps found from the literature review are required to be reported. How the research gaps found from the literature review help to decide the objective of the present research work needs to be highlighted.
2. The captions of figures 1 and 2 have to be provided.
3. The results obtained through CFD are required to be included (numeric results, convergence data, CFD images, etc.).
4. The description of AI used in this study along with considered process parameters is required to be included.
5. Platform/ software used to develop the AI model is required to be included.
6. The input data and output parameters considered to develop the AI model are required to be reported.
7. How has the optimal solution been obtained using AI model? – required to be included.
8. What is the percentage of deviation between the predicted and experimentally obtained results? Required to be shown.

The comments are given below:

• The style of the manuscript will not be accepted in the present form. The authors are advised to check the guideline and style of the IEMPOWER manuscript and arrange it accordingly.

• The citations are not written properly in the main text.

• The figures which are not created by the authors need to be cited properly.

• Since the manuscript is seemed to be a review paper, the title of the manuscript should be changed.

The authors can grade up the paper by more discussion on the numeric method and innovative of the method in the manuscript. The reason of selection of the model can satisfy readers for validation of numerical method. More discussions about verification of numerical results are necessary. Please add flow chart to explain.

The authors can grade up the paper by more discussion on the numeric method and innovative of the method in the manuscript. They can show the routine of your method in an algorithm. The reason of selection of the model can satisfy readers for validation.

• The study presents meaningful experimental observations on wall pressure variation and secondary flows in a double S-shaped duct. However, to merit publication, the paper requires:

• Experimental setup is adequately described, but lacks details on uncertainty and calibration of the measuring instruments.

• Inclined manometer is used for pressure measurement, though precision and error margins are not reported.

• Contour plots effectively show pressure variations but lack axis labels, color bars, and quantitative clarity.

• Flow behavior and secondary motion are qualitatively described, but deeper analysis is missing.

• Literature references are mostly outdated; recent developments in duct flow or CFD validation are not included.

• The manuscript contains several typographical and encoding issues that hamper readability.

• Conclusions summarize observations well but do not highlight practical implications or directions for future work.

The manuscript is well structured and can be accepted after few modifications. There is some fundamental question about the manuscript.

1. What is the novelty of the proposed work. No validation study is added as such.
2. What is the point of comparison the NACA profiles only in terms of stress? The manuscript lacks aerodynamic analysis and important analysis like CFD for such structures.
3. The introduction section is very descriptive. The findings by the authors only can be reported.
4. How the fea analysis is completed? Where is the convergence study? Section 4.3 refers contour plots. What is meant by contour plot?
5. Geometrical properties, boundary conditions must be represented in a tabular form.

Title of the paper:

The current title of the paper, “Structural Strength Analysis of Different Blade Materials for H-Darrieus Wind Turbines Using Finite Element Method”, suggests a comparative analysis of different blade materials. However, the actual work focuses on comparing different blade profiles while using the same material (structural steel) throughout the study. To accurately reflect the scope and content of the research, I strongly recommend revising the title accordingly—perhaps to something like: “Structural Strength Analysis of Different Blade Profiles for H-Darrieus Wind Turbines Using Finite Element Method”. This change would ensure clarity for readers and better alignment between the title and the paper’s core contribution.

Introduction

The first and second paragraphs are somewhat repetitive in stating the motivation. Merging them would improve flow.

Research Methodology

• “Blade geometries were generated using and imported into ANSYS, with each blade having a span of 1.02 meters, a chord length of 0.225 meters, and a spacing of 1.70 meters between adjacent profiles”. Indicate these values in a figure for better understanding.
• Consider adding mesh statistics or a mention of a convergence study for completeness.
• The direction and point of application of the force (7773.5 N) are not clear; mention it. Authors should also mention the source/reference of the values 15.23-20.75 rad/s, 614 Pa, and 7773.5 N considered in the study, for the clarity of readers.
• If possible, keep the image's background white for better visualisation.
• “Fig. 1 shows the FE modelling of the proposed blade design produced with the ANSYS static structural software package.” This figure looks more like the CAD model of the blade. Make appropriate changes with the inclusion of dimensional details for the system.
• There are some minor formatting issues, like the captions of Figs 1 & 2 have a lowercase word at the beginning.
• From Figure 2, it appears that the two blades are meshed with less density than the end structure joining them. Later, results reveal that these blades actually show more stress and deformation. Authors should provide the rationale behind the choice of this counterintuitive meshing strategy.

Numerical Work

A table summarising material properties and airfoil features might improve readability.

Results and Discussion

• Captions for Figs. 3–6 can be more descriptive (e.g., instead of just "Equivalent Von Mises Stress", clarify "Stress distribution for NACA0021 under uniform load").
• Put a note on any validation (analytical or experimental), as it would strengthen credibility.
• Reproduce the images (Figs 3,4,5 (a) to (c)) with a white background.
• Maintain consistency in caption style. (Fig:2, Fig 3(a))
• Table 1 and Figure 6 basically represent the same data. Consider removing one of them.
• Similarly, the last paragraph of 4.3 and 4.4 presents the same thing; consider merging and removing the repetitive portions.

Conclusion

"Future scope" could be expanded by mentioning that dynamic loading, fatigue testing, or composite materials would help.

References

Reference [5] has an extra period at the end.

Final Ratings Summary:

• Originality: 2 (Good)
• Relevance to the Field: 1 (Excellent)
• Technical Quality: 3 (Fair)
• Clarity of Presentation: 2 (Good)
• Depth of Research: 3 (Fair)

Recommendation: Accept with minor revisions: With some minor improvements in presentation and figure clarity, the paper is suitable for acceptance.

1. General Comment

The research topic fits perfectly with the scope of the conference and it is a good research indeed. However some revisions are there.

• Plagiarism needs a revision.

• Diagram of the experimental set up should be provided in the manuscript.

• Why PSO, TLBO and GWO optimization techniques have been compared out of many other techniques is not clear from the text.

• More literatures on AWJM and optimization techniques need to be reviewed, especially the recent ones.

• Conclusion needs to be re-written.

2. Section-wise Comments

• Introduction: Why out of many other meta heuristic optimization technique only PSO, TLBO and GWO have been compared is not clear from the text. More literature review on AWJM and optimization technique are required.

• Methodology: The diagram of the experimental set up is not given in the text.

• Results: Result and discussion part should a separate sub article.

• Discussion: Discussion has been done meticulously.

• Bibliography/References: References are organized in order but not in Vancouver style.

• Introduction – Deficiencies:

Some portions of the introduction read like a literature review. A more focused motivation for comparing PSO, TLBO, and GWO should be articulated.

No explicit research gaps are identified from past work.

Overly descriptive and lengthy in places; conciseness would improve readability.

• Methodology – Deficiencies:

No justification for selecting these three specific algorithms over others (e.g., NSGA-II, GA, DE).

Generic algorithmic steps are copied from standard formulations without adapting to the specific problem context.

The process flow or pseudo-code for each algorithm implementation (especially the multi-objective formulation) is missing.

No explanation of how weights were assigned in the multi-objective function.

• Results – Deficiencies:

The study is entirely based on previously published experimental data (This study focuses on experimental work conducted by Fuse et al. [12])—no new experiments or validation are conducted by the authors.

The optimization results are not statistically validated (e.g., standard deviation, confidence interval).

No discussion on algorithm robustness, repeatability, or sensitivity to parameter changes.

• Discussion – Deficiencies:

No critical or comparative analysis of the algorithms’ performance (e.g., convergence speed, quality of solutions, CPU time).

Lacks insights into why GWO performed better than PSO and TLBO—no connection to their theoretical strengths or parameter tuning.

A standalone discussion section is missing—analysis is embedded in results or conclusion.

• References – Deficiencies:

Only 12 references are cited—this is insufficient for a research paper, especially in a comparative optimization study. At least 25–30 references are expected.

Some metaheuristic literature (e.g., newer multi-objective algorithms or AWJM case studies) is missing.

Several references are not critically analyzed within the manuscript.

• Overall Recommendation:

Rating: 4 – Poor

Accept with Major Revisions (for Conference Proceedings)
OR
Reject (if considered for full journal publication)

• Algorithm Justification: The rationale for selecting TLBO, GWO, and DE is not strongly argued. Include comparative convergence time, scalability, and memory requirement data or references to support why these algorithms were suitable for this micro-EDM task over others like PSO or GA.

• Surface Integrity: Despite using SWR as a response, the manuscript lacks detailed surface integrity discussions, such as microcracks, recast layer, or microhardness. Future versions should consider these aspects to make the optimization outcomes more holistic.

• Material Wear Discussion: The current manuscript focuses primarily on parametric optimization but lacks insight into material wear behavior under EDM processes. Consider citing "Development and wear resistivity performance of SiC and TiB2 particles reinforced novel aluminium matrix composites" to provide a comparative view on how different material compositions affect wear under similar machining operations.

• Sustainability Comparison: While the manuscript centers around micro-EDM, integrating comparative sustainable strategies like cryo-MQL could offer valuable insights. Include "Exploring cryo-MQL medium for hard machining of hastelloy C276: a multi-objective optimization approach" to highlight the differences in cooling/lubrication effectiveness and sustainability between EDM and cryo-assisted processes.

• Industrial Motivation: In the introduction or motivation section, incorporate "Optimizing wire-cut EDM parameters through evolutionary algorithm: a study for improving cost efficiency in turbo-machinery manufacturing". This would strengthen the industrial significance of the study by linking micro-EDM optimization with high-precision sectors like turbine or aerospace.

• Microstructural Consideration: The paper does not address how the chosen parameters influence microstructural transformations. Include references such as "Assessment of Microstructure and Investigation Into the Mechanical Characteristics and Machinability of A356 Aluminum Hybrid Composite Reinforced with SiCp and MWCNTs..." to justify the importance of structural integrity under micro-EDM conditions.

• Broaden Optimization Methods: Only three metaheuristic algorithms are used for optimization. Introduce decision-making-based approaches like "Study of Microstructural, Machining and Tribological Behaviour of AA-6061/SiC MMC Fabricated Through the Squeeze Casting Method and Optimized... by Using Standard Deviation-PROMETHEE Technique" to broaden the methodological framework and compare deterministic vs. metaheuristic optimization.

• Multi-Criteria Validation: You may cite "Wear resistivity of Al7075/6wt.% SiC composite by using grey-fuzzy optimization technique" to introduce alternative multi-criteria methods in wear resistance optimization and support the validity of your selected objectives (MRR, SWR, Overcut, TA).

• Thermal Aspects: The study does not explore thermal aspects, such as spark-induced heat flux or tool/workpiece temperature gradients. Refer to "Study of heat generation and its effect during submerged arc welding (SAW) on mild steel plate at zero degree Celsius plate temperature" to link your process with thermal implications that affect EDM accuracy and surface finish.

• Multi-Response Strategy: Integrate the work titled "A grey-fuzzy based multi-response optimisation study on the friction and wear characteristics of titanium diboride reinforced aluminium matrix composite" to support the use of multi-response strategies for simultaneous optimization and to enhance discussions on optimization trade-offs.

• Experimental Validation: Include SEM or optical microscope images of micro-EDM holes post-optimization to validate surface roughness predictions visually. This would substantiate the numerical outputs and enhance the experimental credibility of the paper.

• Future Work: In the conclusion, expand future work by proposing integration of AI methods (e.g., ANN + optimization hybrid) or data-driven surrogate models for better prediction of machining behavior under varied conditions.

Manuscript Status: Accepted

Review Ratings (Out of 5):

• Originality: 4
• Relevance to the Field: 5
• Technical Quality: 4
• Clarity of Presentation: 4
• Depth of Research: 4

• Use case or case study, e.g., how a student used this tool and benefited from a recommended career path.

• Include a feature importance analysis to provide transparency on which academic/cocurricular factors influenced the decisions.

• Consider extending the system to support multilingual input or integration with LinkedIn/APIs for real-time recommendations.

The following things are to be addressed:

• There are a plenty of spelling mistakes. The author is thoroughly instructed to use Grammarly software.

• Where is Figure 4?

• There is no Abstract. Also, there is no Introduction part.

• Conclude part in Section 8 should be "Conclusions".

• Please add Future Scope of Works.

Abstract does not represent the content clearly.

"Brenner and Riddell created a ground-breaking coating technology in the middle of the 20th century [1]. Known as the 'Electroless Coating,' this technique didn't use electricity." The meaning is not clear. A lot of portion contains such errors. Hence, the manuscript needs to be checked thoroughly and corrected properly.

• "Fast plating rate" in Table 1 is written twice.
• "Then, the adsorption atomic hydrogen into the formed Ni-P deposit occurs, followed by the new co deposition of Ni and P." — What do you mean?
• "Finally H_ads is generated and Ni and P are coded." — Not clear.
• "Generally speaking, certain reactions in SME baths may be unfavorable for precipitation:..." — What is SME? It is not mentioned earlier in the text.

There are a lot of mistakes, and there is no proper flow of the study. Hence, it is difficult to understand the message clearly. The references are also not arranged properly.

Very poorly written. Needs thorough correction and restructure of the manuscript to accept it.

• Manuscript needs significant improvement

• Introduction: The abstract and the area is good however the presented discussion of the introduction is not sufficient and previously publihed paper also needs to be discussed

• Methodology: Process required to discuss

• Results: Not sufficient and it is not organized. In the present form it cannot be accepted

• Discussion: Needs to improve the discussion mentioning the previous and current results

• Bibliography/References: no reference has been given

• Methodology and Experimental Design

1.1 Could you clarify if the machining conditions in Table 1 were optimized beforehand? If not, were they based on a standard or prior work?

1.2 Please specify the material type and dimensions of the workpieces used in the corner profile experiments.

1.3 How many repetitions were performed for each experimental condition to ensure repeatability of the results?

1.4 How were the wire lag, gap voltage, and spark current precisely measured? Were signal filtering or averaging techniques applied?

• Modelling and Simulation

2.1 The model assumes constant wire lag and uniform cutting speed. How do you justify these assumptions for real-time machining with dynamic interactions?

2.2 Spark gap variation and discharge energy fluctuation were omitted from the model. Could you estimate the potential impact of this exclusion?

2.3 Were statistical metrics (e.g., R², RMSE, MAE) used to evaluate the agreement between experimental and predicted values?

• Regression Analysis and Data Interpretation

3.1 Some regression equations (e.g., Eqs. 2–4) were presented without explicit mathematical expressions. Could you provide the complete equations?

3.2 Were confidence intervals or p-values calculated for the regression coefficients to confirm statistical significance?

3.3 In Figures 4–10, was smoothing or curve fitting applied to the experimental data? If so, what method was used?

• Experimental Results and Figures

4.1 Are the raw experimental datasets used in Figure 8–10 available for peer scrutiny? Could they be shared in supplementary files?

4.2 The figures do not indicate variability. Could you include standard deviations or error bars to reflect experimental uncertainty?

4.3 Could you succinctly state how your mathematical model advances beyond the models proposed by Hsue et al. (1999) or Sarkar et al. (2011)?

4.4 What are the key limitations of your model, and how might future work address wire lag variation along the height of the workpiece?

• Summary Recommendation: The paper presents a sound experimental and modelling framework for predicting wire path in WEDM corner cutting. However, detailed justification of modelling assumptions, regression clarity, and reproducibility support (data/code availability) would enhance its value significantly.

• Optimization: The paper does not mention any optimization approach or method. Consider including this if applicable.

• Speed Calculation: In the “Calculate Speed” section, it is written that 100 meters = 1.67 minutes. However, no explanation or calculation is provided for how this value was obtained. Please clarify.

• Formatting Issues: In the “Robotic Cycle Time” section, some lines are written using subscript formatting unnecessarily. In the “Calculate Speed” section, font sizes are inconsistent. Ensure uniform font formatting throughout the document.

• Material Properties Missing: The material properties or specific grade of high carbon steel are not provided. Please include relevant material specifications for clarity and accurate simulation interpretation.

• Static Structural Analysis – Support Condition: In Section 5, the lower part of the frame is considered a fixed support. However, in a real-world scenario, the axle or wheels should be treated as the fixed support. More critically, the pivot point of the trolley, which connects it to the vehicle, should be treated as the fixed support. Fixing the entire bottom surface does not reflect realistic boundary conditions.

• Applied Pressure Inconsistency: In Section 5.2 “Pressure Applied,” it is mentioned that a uniform pressure of 200 Pascal is applied. However, the simulation diagram shows 2000 Pascal. Also, if each tray carries a 20 kg load, please justify how this translates to 200 or 2000 Pascal pressure on the model. Clarification and proper calculation are required here.

• Deformation Results: According to Section 5.2.1, the deformation for high carbon steel is 2.76 mm, while for stainless steel it is 9.022 mm. However, in Section 5.3.2 “Equivalent Stresses,” the maximum equivalent stress for high carbon steel is reported as 10.8 MPa and for stainless steel as 4.57 MPa. Please justify these results—how does the material with lower stress (stainless steel) show higher deformation? Material stiffness (Young’s modulus) must be considered and explained.

• Dynamic Analysis – Frequency Range: In Section 6.1 “Dynamic Analysis,” a frequency range is presented. However, the basis for selecting this frequency range is not explained. It is recommended to perform a modal analysis to determine the natural frequencies and validate the chosen range.

• Formatting Consistency: Please ensure consistency in font size across the entire document. Also, subscript and superscript formatting should be carefully checked and corrected where necessary.

• Overall Remark: The paper requires significant enhancements in both technical precision and presentation quality to meet international standards.

The manuscript demonstrates a strong understanding of finite element and dynamic analysis techniques, applied meaningfully to AGV optimization. The comparison between high-carbon and stainless steel is technically sound and well-documented. However, authors should work on following points.

The document structure can be improved substantially. Currently, it feels like a project report, not a conference paper. Some expressions (e.g., “manual handling… pose safety risks, especially when scaled across multiple shifts”) are more suited to reports than academic. Using formal academic phrasing would improve professionalism. I will also suggest removing the redundancy figures and data, make the manuscript more compact and presentable.

Authors should thoroughly check for typo. For example, section headings like "SASTIC STRUCTURAL ANAYLSIS" contain typographical errors. Also, figures should be consistently numbered and cited in the text. Some figure captions are missing or repeated (e.g., Fig. 1, Fig. 1.1).

The use of performance optimization (through wheel diameter and layer thickness) is good. But the novelty over existing AGV optimization studies should be more clearly articulated, especially in the context of prior literature (e.g., how it builds over Ref #6 or #9).

The FEA boundary conditions (e.g., applied pressure of 200 Pa) and mesh sensitivity are not fully explained. Including justification for load application strategy and mesh refinement levels would add rigor to the structural analysis methodology.

The robotic + AGV integration is described qualitatively, but the control strategy, sensor usage, or synchronization method between the robot and AGV is not detailed. A basic system architecture or flowchart illustrating this interaction would enhance technical completeness.

• Perform thorough proofreading to correct grammatical errors and improve clarity.

• Maintain consistent terminology throughout the paper. Replace “mild steel” with “EN8 steel” where applicable.

• If possible add a brief comparative discussion of mustard oil with other commonly used lubricants.

• There are some spelling mistakes in the manuscript. Rectify those.

• Conclusion may be written point wise showing numerical values from the observations.

Query 1: Why was InceptionV3-Based CNN chosen, keeping aside all other Deep learning models?

Query 2: Nevertheless, applying deep learning models for DR detection has drawbacks, such as. This portion should be added in the conclusion part, not in the introduction part.

Query 3: Similar work has been done by Faheem et. al., (2023). What is the uniqueness of this work?

Query 4: Many of the sentences of the article are too convoluted, thereby losing their essence. Verify with a standard language editor.

• Provide quantitative results demonstrating system performance, if possible.

• Both figures, which have been used in the paper, suffer from a lack of readability.

• Proofread for grammar and sentence structure.

• Include a block diagram of the proposed methodology for easy illustration of the methodology.

Comment: Lack of Technical Depth in Methodology

While NLP and speech recognition are mentioned, the abstract does not briefly outline how they are implemented (e.g., sentiment analysis, keyword extraction, speech-to-text engines). A short mention of this would enhance clarity for technically inclined readers.

Suggestions:

• Add Figures/Tables: Present statistics in visuals or tables for better readability and to avoid confusion.
• Cite Sources: Include references for performance metrics and adoption models used.
• Validate Implementation Claims: Specify whether data is hypothetical, from pilots, or modeled projections.

Comment:

The goal is clear, but the phrasing and spelling are too casual for a scientific or academic paper. Examples include: “moslty” → “mostly”; “assesable” → “accessible”; “Na¨ıve” → “Naïve”, among others.

There are formatting inconsistencies, grammatical errors, and typographical issues throughout the manuscript that should be corrected.

Clarify the limitations regarding the choice of k and how it impacts clustering results—methods such as the Elbow Method or Silhouette Score can be referenced to justify the chosen value.

Introduction: 05

Methodology: 03

Results: 02

Discussion: 01

References: 02

This paper lacks in every respect and thus can not be accepted further for revision.

While this study investigates the electronic properties of doped graphene using common dopants such as hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen via DFT, it does not explore the impact of co-doping (simultaneous doping with two or more elements) or transition metal doping, which have been shown in recent studies to more effectively tune the bandgap and enhance the semiconducting behavior of graphene for specific applications such as spintronics, photocatalysis, and sensing.

The work uses BURAI GUI and VESTA, but does not mention any limitations of using GUI-based platforms.

The methodology does not explain how many dopant atoms are introduced per supercell, whether they are substitutional or adsorbed, or the doping percentage. These details are crucial for interpreting electronic changes and for ensuring reproducibility.

The methodology discusses technical testing (e.g., simulated patient data, transaction throughput, latency) but does not include usability testing or user feedback from real patients or healthcare providers.

Although the AI chatbot is described as "transformer-based" and fine-tuned on medical QA datasets, there is no evaluation of the chatbot’s clinical accuracy, safety, or trustworthiness in responses.

While the system is technically functional, there is no mention of infrastructure costs, energy usage, or deployment overhead, such as Blockchain operations (e.g., cost in ETH per transaction), hosting transformer-based AI models for inference, Storage and bandwidth cost for IPFS nodes at scale.

• This work looks to be a useful study in the making. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend this paper for conference presentation in its current form and major revisions are required. The reasons are as follows.

• Some references are not cited correctly (not in proper format).

• From the objective of the paper, it seems that some experimental test rig was developed. However, the test rig is not shown. Moreover, no results are presented in the paper.

• On the other hand, from the abstract, it seems that this is intended to be a review paper. In that case, I strongly advise the authors to significantly revise the manuscript organization.

• Contribution to knowledge by this study is not present and needs to be added.

• Results are not compared with existing literature benchmarks, limiting the scope of evaluating model novelty. Even current literature is not included at all.

• How has class imbalance been resolved here?

• What is the exact model to propose? The objective is not clear at all.

• The study does not provide life expectancy, number of cycles to failure, or wear rate metrics. Including these quantitative evaluations with proper benchmarks would improve the engineering value of the paper.

• Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is well used, but the results would be more convincing if compared with strain gauge data or thermal imaging validation. Consider adding experimental backing for FEA assumptions.

• The failure analysis of diamond segments would be enriched by including the study "Development and wear resistivity performance of SiC and TiB₂ particles reinforced novel aluminium matrix composites". This will allow for comparative discussion on segment degradation under abrasive conditions across different material systems.

• The manuscript does not explore the role of cooling techniques in segment failure or edge burning. Including insights from "Exploring cryo-MQL medium for hard machining of hastelloy C276: a multi-objective optimization approach" would offer a perspective on how advanced lubrication/cooling methods might prevent overheating-induced defects such as edge burns.

• The paper could benefit from the incorporation of a parametric optimization section for cutting parameters. Refer to "Optimizing wire-cut EDM parameters through evolutionary algorithm: a study for improving cost efficiency in turbo-machinery manufacturing" to highlight how evolutionary algorithms can guide optimal cutting speeds and feed rates in blade design.

• To enhance the understanding of failure mechanisms like crack propagation or debonding, introduce findings from "Assessment of Microstructure and Investigation Into the Mechanical Characteristics and Machinability of A356 Aluminum Hybrid Composite Reinforced with SiCp and MWCNTs...". This would help relate observed failures to changes in the microstructure under thermal and mechanical loading.

• Parameter optimization appears heuristic and lacks data-driven selection logic. The paper should consider referencing "Study of Microstructural, Machining and Tribological Behaviour of AA-6061/SiC MMC... using Standard Deviation-PROMETHEE Technique", which introduces multi-criteria decision-making tools suitable for optimizing cutting speed, depth, and feed rate.

• Reliability modeling of diamond segment wear or debonding is missing. Include "Wear resistivity of Al7075/6wt.% SiC composite by using grey-fuzzy optimization technique" to demonstrate how fuzzy logic and grey-based approaches can help predict tool life and suggest corrective actions.

• The work would benefit from a thermal-mechanical coupling perspective. Reference "Study of heat generation and its effect during submerged arc welding (SAW) on mild steel plate at zero degree Celsius plate temperature" to explain how local thermal spikes affect segment bonding and contribute to early failure.

• A more holistic failure evaluation—considering wear, vibration, and thermal stress simultaneously—would be beneficial. Introduce "A grey-fuzzy based multi-response optimisation study on the friction and wear characteristics of titanium diboride reinforced aluminium matrix composite" to provide a framework for such multi-objective modeling.

• The paper mentions "professional" and "premium" grades but does not clarify how segment material differences affect wear or fracture. Include comparative performance data for these blade types or cite standards that define them.

• Figures (e.g., 2, 3, 5, 8) showing wear and failure are helpful, but lack scale bars, materials tested, or loading conditions. Captions should include operational parameters to contextualize each failure.

• Repetition and Redundancy: The same failure modes (like debonding or diamond segment wear) are mentioned multiple times in different formats (text, figure captions, tables). Example: “Debonding and failure of segment” appears three times under different headings.

• Poor Figure Integration: Figures (e.g., Figure 2–12) are mentioned without proper captions, explanations, or placement. There’s also inconsistency in formatting (e.g., “Figure 4Partially...”).

• Ambiguous Failure Terminology: Some terms like “Hammer cutting” or “Side fracture due to wear out cutter” are not standard mechanical failure terms and may be unclear to the reader.

• Absence of Failure Mechanism Explanation: Failure types are listed, but no root causes or mechanisms are explained in detail for many of them. For example: Why does segment wear lead to “hammer cutting”? What mechanical phenomenon causes “edge burning”?

• Absence of Quantitative Data on Failures: The failure section lacks data on frequency, severity, or time to failure.

• The abstract currently included seems unrelated to the title and body of the paper, Please update the abstract to accurately reflect your smart prognostic system for machine failure prediction.

• Add the correct paper ID once assigned.

• Recommend to clearly cite the dataset used and briefly discussing any limitations or future scalability challenges.

Comment: System Reliability and Completeness of Design

• Dependency on External Database: The system’s reliance on the campus database for verification introduces a point of failure. If the campus database is outdated or unavailable, users will face access issues. This dependency should be mitigated through caching, fallbacks, or periodic sync mechanisms.
• Token Lifecycle Management: While using HTTP-only cookies to store JWTs is a good security practice, the design lacks mention of token expiration handling and refresh mechanisms. Without a refresh strategy, users will need to log in frequently, degrading the user experience.
• Missing Mentor/Admin Analytics: The methodology focuses on mentee dashboards but does not mention analytics tools for mentors and administrators. Including progress tracking, performance summaries, and task insights would enhance usability and oversight for these critical roles.

The following points are to be addressed:

• Abstract should be more crisp in respect of key findings.

• Conclusions part is too short. It needs to be enlarged through bullet points.

• All Table captions are in capital letters. Please check.

• There are a plenty of spelling mistakes. The authors are instructed to check the manuscript thoroughly using Grammarly software.

Introduction
Needs language polishing (many grammatical errors and awkward phrasings). Example:
“Milling is one of the versatile machining process” → “Milling is one of the most versatile machining processes.”
Consider rewriting key sentences for clarity and professionalism.

Theoretical Background
Subsections (e.g., Tool wear, Chip morphology) should be formatted more cleanly.
Have the authors taken figures 1 and 2 from any other sources (e.g., books, research papers)? If yes, give appropriate credit to them by citation.

Experimental Setup
Minor improvement in sentence structuring needed for better readability.
Can the authors clarify whether tool wear measurements were repeated or statistically averaged for reliability? This would help assess the repeatability and robustness of the experimental procedure.
The current study uses a uniaxial accelerometer. Would triaxial sensing provide a more complete vibration signature? Adding this consideration can enhance the scope for future studies and give deeper insights into tool condition.

Results and Discussions
Include some quantitative data (e.g., Ra values in a table format) for more clarity.
Was any repeatability or uncertainty analysis done?
Labels in Figure 5 can be enlarged for better readability.
Would real-time tool condition monitoring be feasible based on the vibration analysis method proposed? A brief discussion on online monitoring feasibility can add value for practical implementation.

5. Conclusion
The section could be slightly more specific, e.g., mention exact values wherever possible to back up statements.

Language and Formatting
The paper suffers from numerous grammatical errors, inconsistent formatting, and awkward sentence constructions. I strongly advise the authors to thoroughly review the paper and ensure it is free from grammatical errors.

Final Ratings Summary:
Originality: 2 (Good)
Relevance to the Field: 1 (Excellent)
Technical Quality: 2 (Good)
Clarity of Presentation: 3 (Fair)
Depth of Research: 2 (Good)

Recommendation: Accept with minor revisions: Mainly language, clarity, and figure formatting improvements are needed. The technical contribution is solid and valuable for the conference audience. The paper is suitable for acceptance.

This paper addresses a highly practical and timely challenge—improving the efficiency of split air-conditioners using a simple, cost-effective evaporative cooling add-on. The approach is thoughtful, and the proposed solution seems feasible and well-aligned with current goals of energy savings and decarbonization.

The authors have done a good job combining theoretical analysis with experimental validation, and the results—especially the 10–13% energy savings—are impressive.

That said, there are a few areas where the manuscript could benefit from minor improvements:

• Some parts of the text are quite dense or repetitive and could be reworded for clarity and flow.
• A few figures and diagrams need better captions and clearer references in the main text.
• It would also help to elaborate more on the novelty of the nozzle design—how exactly is it different from other evaporative cooling systems already in use?

A clearer highlight of this innovation will strengthen the paper’s impact. Overall, this is a promising contribution that just needs a little polish.

• No literature has acknowledged the formulation of the problem. Arrange the literature in a well-organized manner (in the introduction section).

• While the web app is mentioned, no screenshots of the developed app are included here.

• The paper should be properly organised. Several typographical errors and no formatting at all!

The paper structure requires major modifications

1. what is the novelty of the paper?
2. why topology optimization is implemented and what is the outcome?
3. Result section is disorganised. There can not be such small yet many paragraphs.
4. References are too many and are not cited in the introduction
5. Introduction section to be modified.
6. explain the convergence criteria for the analysis.
7. English is not well written.

The paper can be accepted after these changes are incorporated.

The manuscript entitled "Crankshaft Design Enhancement Through Optimization for C-Type Power Press" needs the following corrections:

• Extend the abstract by including a few words about the key outcomes of the work.
• Clearly state the objective of the study in the Introduction section.
• Explain what EN9 and EN24 materials are, and justify their selection for this study.
• Use abbreviations only when the full terms are introduced for the first time in the main text.
• Mention the versions of all software packages used.
• Provide a clear explanation of the boundary conditions applied in the analysis.
• Rearrange the figures in the correct numerical order.
• Only one reference, "Ramnath et al." appears in the text without numbering or year, while the bibliography contains 56 references without being mentioned in the text and without proper formatting. Please revise accordingly.

• In the present manuscript, the authors present an innovative approach to crankshaft design by integrating optimized geometries and sustainable manufacturing techniques within a finite element framework. The work is interesting and suitable for presenting at the conference. However, there are still several minor aspects that should be improved or clarified before the paper can be recommended for publication, as follows:

• Though 56 research articles are given in the reference list, they are not cited in the manuscript, particularly in the literature review portion within section ‘1.0 INTRODUCTION’. The authors are advised to revise the ‘1.0 INTRODUCTION’ section.

• The research gap is not clearly identified in section ‘1.0 INTRODUCTION’, which the present work intends to fulfil. Such a research gap should be described properly through a suitable literature review.

• Information about the type of element used to model the structure, along with the number of elements or mesh size within the ANSYS platform, is missing. Describe them properly.

• The sequence of figure numbering for Figures 2–15 is very confusing. Please check this and correct accordingly.

• Beginning of the third paragraph within section ‘1.0 INTRODUCTION’, i.e., “Modern tools like FEM and ANSYS …” is not technically correct. FEM and ANSYS are not different, rather, ANSYS is a commercial package based on FEM.

• There are many loosely written sentences within the whole manuscript. The English writing should be improved throughout the whole manuscript. The authors are requested to go through the whole manuscript carefully and rectify the ambiguities throughout the paper.

• Title and Abstract: The title is appropriate, but the abstract contains a few grammatical issues (e.g., “In paper provides…” should be “This paper provides…”). Please revise for clarity and readability.

• Technical Content: The manuscript effectively discusses multiple advanced methods. However, it would benefit from a comparative table summarizing key features, strengths, and limitations of each approach.

• Figures and Tables: Including visual diagrams of architectures (e.g., for DEC or DSNMF) and flowcharts would improve readability and comprehension. The current tables (datasets and metrics) are helpful but lack contextual interpretation in the text.

• Evaluation Metrics: The section is informative. Including a sample table comparing evaluation scores (e.g., NMI, ACC, ARI) across methods on benchmark datasets would greatly strengthen the review.

• References: Ensure consistency in citation formatting, e.g., “[17]” refers to multiple datasets without clear linking in the main text. Avoid duplicate or inconsistent citation formats (like "[1]" vs. "[18]" for the same source).

• While the paper offers a solid overview of Uncertainty Quantification in Remote Sensing using ML/DL, there are several major shortcomings that should be addressed to enhance its quality.

• Please proofread. There are numerous grammatical and typographical errors.

• Inconsistent formatting of citations in the paper (e.g.-section 3.1,3.2).

• Uneven spacing (page no. 8).

• Some technical terms are introduced without proper definitions (e.g., SSNN).

• The paper is a review, but the "Experimental Results" section misleadingly suggests original experimentation, which it does not contain. Rename the section to "Comparative Summary of Existing Work" and clearly mention that the data is from literature.

• Improper formatting of the references.

• These references are listed but not clearly cited in the main body:

  [11] Jingzheng Zhao, Hui Yang – (Appears unused or mislabeled.)

  [12] Chunyan Wang – (Possibly cited as [12] but author mismatch with Camps-Valls?)

  [14] Marc Rußwurm – (Check if it aligns with citation [14].)

  [18] Tran, van der Kwast et al – Possibly referenced indirectly but not clearly cited.

  [19] Hemati – Not clearly cited.

• Author initials (R.K., P.S., A.S.) used in the contribution section are different than the name given at the beginning of the paper.

• Explicitly state what IntelliCrop does that has not been done before.

• The manuscript presents an interesting comparative study using Taguchi and Bonobo Optimizer for optimizing electroless Ni-P-CNT coatings. The experimental framework is generally sound, and the results are promising. However, minor improvements in clarity, equation formatting, terminology consistency, and deeper explanation of figures and interactions are recommended to enhance the manuscript's technical quality and readability.

• The paper uses both Taguchi and Bonobo Optimizer techniques. A clearer justification for selecting these two methods together and how they complement each other is needed.

• The regression model used as the objective function in the Bonobo Optimizer has an R² value of 75.77%, which may not be sufficient for robust predictions. Validation or residual analysis should be included.

• The implementation of the Bonobo Optimizer should include justification for key parameters (e.g., learning rate, population size, number of iterations), and explain the convergence behavior more rigorously.

• Only three chemical bath components were varied. Other critical factors (e.g., pH, temperature, deposition time) were held constant, which may overlook their interactive effects on surface roughness.

• The study focuses only on surface roughness. Inclusion of complementary properties such as microhardness, wear resistance, or corrosion behavior would provide a more comprehensive evaluation of coating quality.

• No SEM, AFM, or optical microscopy data is provided to support the reduction in surface roughness or to visualize the Ni-P-CNT distribution on the substrate.

• ANOVA results are presented, but further statistical validation such as lack-of-fit test, residual analysis, or confidence intervals would improve the credibility of the regression model.

• The significant interaction between sodium hypophosphite and CNTs is reported but not physically interpreted. The underlying mechanism of this interaction’s impact on roughness should be discussed.

• The Bonobo method showed better results than Taguchi, but the statistical significance of this difference (e.g., % error reduction, repeatability) was not quantified.

• Surface roughness is reported as “y ( )” in several places. Units (e.g., µm) should be clearly and consistently mentioned throughout the manuscript.

• Several equations (e.g., fitness function, regression model) are mentioned but not clearly shown or formatted in the manuscript. Ensure proper presentation and explanation.

• While the Bonobo Optimizer is a novel algorithm, its comparative advantage over traditional metaheuristics (like GA or PSO) in the context of electroless coatings should be more critically analyzed and highlighted.

• The basis for selection of the parameters in Table 1 is not explained.

• Table and Figure captions are missing.

• RF classifier being the most suitable model is not supported by the results demonstrated in Table 2. Even SVM has better results than RF classifier. Kindly clarify this with scientific reasoning.

• Abbreviations should be defined in the first instance of their appearance. Thereafter, only abbreviations should be used throughout the rest of the paper.

• The investigation can be very useful in industries. However, some clarifications are required.

• Section 2.3.2 Software Development: Do the authors develop any software or use available software with novel coding? Please clarify.

• The machine used in the investigation must be specified. Different machines may produce different vibration patterns.

• How was the fault data acquired? Was it obtained from the same machine used in the study or sourced from literature?

• The data presented in the article is inadequate. The authors are requested to supply sample data from LabView software or represent the MATLAB interface where FFT is employed.

• The article needs thorough checking by an English-proficient academician. There are numerous grammatical errors.

• The findings are innovative and good. Only concern is about the formatting of the manuscript.

• Authors are advised to write the affiliation properly (see the standard journals where only department and institution with location are mentioned).

• Organize the tables, figures, etc., as per standard formatting guidelines.

• Authors are also suggested to follow the format of IEMPOWER for the manuscript.

• Hence, authors are required to do the minor revision.

• The abstract would benefit from the inclusion of measurable results or case outcomes.

• Grammar and flow need minor improvement to enhance readability.

• The contribution of the study could be more sharply defined.

• Keywords are missing and need to be added.

• Authors are advised to go through any standard research paper and modify their paper accordingly. In its current format, it resembles a report.

• Research gaps and novelty should be clearly defined.

• Every figure should have a clearly defined caption.

• Figure 7 is not visible and needs to be enlarged.

• All tables should be editable; do not provide screenshots of tables.

• Table 1 caption is provided twice. The table caption should appear only once, at the top of the table.

• No reference section is provided in the manuscript. Authors should be serious when uploading the file.

• Some sentences are lengthy and could be split for better readability.

• The conclusion section lacks specific data or quantified results.

• The authors should significantly revise their manuscript to conform to a standard, presentable format. Currently, it is written as a report or thesis.

Rating: 2

1. The study provides a comprehensive analysis of the corrosion behavior of API X60 steel in different NaCl concentrations and CO₂ environments. The use of multiple characterization techniques (electrochemical, surface analysis, spectroscopy) strengthens the findings.

2. The methodology is well-described and appropriate for investigating corrosion mechanisms. The use of potentiodynamic polarization, EIS, SEM/EDS, XRD and Raman spectroscopy provides complementary data to support the conclusions.

3. The results clearly demonstrate the protective effect of CO₂ saturation, especially at lower NaCl concentrations, due to the formation of an FeCO₃ passive film. This is supported by electrochemical, morphological and spectroscopic evidence.

4. The discussion effectively links the electrochemical behavior to the surface film characteristics and corrosion product formation. The proposed mechanisms are well-supported by the experimental data.

5. The conclusions are sound and align with the presented results. The practical implications for corrosion control in oil/gas pipelines are highlighted.

6. Some minor suggestions for improvement:

• Consider adding error bars to some of the quantitative results (e.g. corrosion rates) to show reproducibility
• The EIS equivalent circuit model could be explained in more detail
• A brief discussion on limitations of the study or future work directions would be beneficial

7. Overall, this appears to be a thorough and well-executed study that provides valuable insights into the corrosion behavior of API X60 steel under relevant environmental conditions. The paper is suitable for publication after addressing any minor revisions suggested by the journal reviewers.

The study provides a comprehensive analysis of the corrosion behavior of API X60 steel in different NaCl concentrations and CO₂ environments. The use of multiple characterization techniques (electrochemical, surface analysis, spectroscopy) strengthens the findings. The methodology is well-described and appropriate for investigating corrosion mechanisms. The use of potentiodynamic polarization, EIS, SEM/EDS, XRD, and Raman spectroscopy provides complementary data to support the conclusions. The paper is well written but needs a few minor changes before publication.

• Consider adding error bars to some of the quantitative results (e.g., corrosion rates) to show reproducibility.
• Introduction: Needs to be strengthened. Add more similar papers such as:
  • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.01.259
  • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.03.326
  • https://yanthrika.com/eja/index.php/ijvss/article/view/3174
• EIS Equivalent Circuit: The model could be explained in more detail.
• Equations: Cite all equations in the respective discussions.
• Experimental Setup: If possible, add the actual image of the EIS setup along with schematic diagrams.
• Figure 3: Increase the font sizes of the x and y axes for better visibility.
• Figures: Add labels such as “Sample 1” instead of just “1,” along with respective color identification for clarity.
• Conclusion: Rewrite the conclusions in bullet points based on the results for better understanding.

Manuscript Evaluation Report

Subject: Technical Review and Decision on Manuscript Submission

Decision: Rejected

Following a detailed review of the submitted manuscript, several critical issues have been identified that significantly affect the technical integrity, clarity, and consistency of the paper. These issues are outlined below:

• Missing References:

• Reference numbers 14, 15, and 17 are cited in the reference list but not found in the main manuscript text. This raises concerns about the relevance and proper integration of literature sources.
• Reference number 16 is present in the manuscript but not cited in the correct sequential order, violating standard referencing conventions.

• Equation Formatting Error:

• There is a formatting mistake in Equation 1. The equation is not properly scripted, affecting its readability and scientific clarity. Proper mathematical scripting must be followed for professional presentation.

• Data and Interpretation Inconsistency (Page 6):

• On page 6, line 4, the explanation or interpretation provided does not align with the data presented in Table 1, leading to confusion and questioning the validity of the conclusion.

• Mismatch of Optimum Combination Level (Page 9):

• The optimum combination level CT3L1FP3, as mentioned on page 9, line 7, is not supported by Figure 3, Table 3, or Table 4. This suggests a discrepancy between the claimed results and the actual data presented.

• Inconsistent Terminology (FL vs. FP):

• The Filler Loading (FL) parameter is inconsistently referred to as FP in multiple lines. This inconsistency leads to confusion in understanding parameter assignments and affects the technical clarity of the manuscript.

• Unsupported Temperature Value (Page 10):

• On page 10, line 4, and in Figure 4(b), a temperature of 800°C is mentioned. However, this temperature value is not part of the experimental design parameters listed in Table 1, thus undermining the reliability of the experimental results and conclusions drawn.

• Contradiction in Optimum Combination (Page 11):

• On page 11, the manuscript states an optimum combination level of L1CT3FP3, which again does not match any combination verified or presented in the manuscript, indicating inconsistency in result interpretation.

What is the primary objective of this study, and how does it address gaps in existing research on bio-char-reinforced composites?

Why was orange peel particle (OPP) bio-char selected as the filler material, and how does its composition (cellulose, lignin, etc.) influence composite properties?

Describe the hand-lay-up fabrication process used for the composites. What are the potential limitations of this method?

Explain the rationale behind using the Taguchi method (L9 orthogonal array) for this study. How does it optimize the number of experiments? L6 is unable to explore interaction effect, then why the authors have selected this OA?

The study tests loads of 10–30 N and sliding velocities of 1.041–2.01 m/s. Are these ranges representative of real-world applications? Justify your answer.

According to the S/N ratio analysis (Table 3), load had the highest impact on wear rate. Why might this parameter dominate over filler loading or carbonization temperature?

SEM images (Figure 4) show smoother worn surfaces at higher carbonization temperatures (800°C). What microstructural changes in bio-char explain this observation?

The wear mechanism shifts from abrasion to delamination with increased load/velocity. How does bio-char reinforcement mitigate delamination compared to raw fillers?

Originality: 1, Relevance to the Field: 2, Technical Quality: 2, Clarity of Presentation: 2, and Depth of Research: 2

Review on

Investigation of Magneto-elastic Effects in Cast Iron Under Fatigue and Compressive Loading
by Subhankar Moulick, Suprim Sardar, Sutanu Misra and Ratan Kumar Basak

The manuscript is written like ‘an article for a magazine’ rather than a research/conference article. There are some major observations, authors should address before final submission/presentation. Also, the manuscript should be checked for readability, basic grammatical and typographical errors before further submission, if selected.

Comment 1: In the ‘Introduction’, thirteen, comparatively old, literatures are surveyed but:

• No literature on the magnetoelasticity and its applications in mechanical testing are discussed.
• No research gap(s) are clearly identified.
• No clear objective and benchmarks are set.

Comment 2: In the ‘Materials and Method’ section:

• Unnecessary details of the UTM and already known scientific facts are given, rather than particular test set-up, attachments and data acquisition system.
• Specimen used for tests were not standard, but no details and justification are given.
• No details of the tests and data processing schemes are discussed.

Comment 3: In the ‘Result and Discussion’ section:

• It is written that ‘During the compressive test on INSTRON 8801, cast iron sample was stretched to failure’ – why the word ‘stretched’ is used with the compression tests?
• The results are presented in an informal way. The authors should take good care of the raw data/any representation which should be clearly visible and apprehensible and also, substantially justify the claims.
• Figure numbers and citations are missing.
• Some claims are made in this section, without proper justification and/or evidence and/or supportive literature, for example:
  • ‘At the urge of breakage, energy generated within the sample manifested into two forms of energies one the heat and other the induction of magnetic energy within the sample’
  • ‘Since the load is cyclic in nature density of the material increases or relaxes according to the loading cycle’
  • ‘Due to random orientations of molecules of the sample, magnetic strength so obtained will be of fluctuating nature’
  • ‘This is to note that distortion seen in the figure is due to hysteresis present in the material’

Comment 4: In the ‘Conclusion’ section, no conclusion is made on the fatigue damage and the second part of the objective mentioned in the ‘Abstract’ i.e. ‘The research focuses on the residual magnetism retained by the material after mechanical loading and its correlation with structural failure’ is not met.

Comment 5: No proper and uniform referencing style were maintained.

Overall, the work seems to be incomplete, though some merits can be observed from the application point of view. And, the representation needs major revisions.

Title: Optimisation of Process Parameters for Machining Titanium Foam Grade V using WEDM

General Comments
This manuscript investigates the optimization of Wire Electrical Discharge Machining (WEDM) parameters for Titanium Foam Grade V, focusing on Material Removal Rate (MRR) and Surface Roughness (SR). The topic is relevant to the field of advanced manufacturing, particularly in the context of machining difficult-to-cut materials for biomedical and aerospace applications. The use of Response Surface Methodology (RSM) via the Box-Behnken design is an appropriate approach for this kind of optimization study.

The paper successfully demonstrates the influence of key process parameters (pulse-on time, pulse-off time, etc.) on the desired output responses. The inclusion of multi-objective optimization and SEM analysis adds value to the study.

However, the manuscript requires significant revision before it can be considered for publication. The overall structure is logical, but there are critical omissions in the methodology and results sections that undermine the reproducibility and scientific validity of the work. The presentation quality, particularly of figures and tables, needs substantial improvement. The discussion of the results could be more in-depth, providing stronger connections between the observed phenomena (e.g., surface features in SEM) and the physics of the WEDM process. The language and formatting also require careful proofreading.

The authors have laid a decent foundation, but addressing the specific points below is essential to elevate the manuscript to a publishable standard.

Specific Corrections and Suggestions

Here are 10 points that need to be addressed:

1. Missing Response Variable Analysis: The abstract and introduction identify three response metrics: Material Removal Rate (MRR), Surface Roughness (SR), and electrode wear rate. However, the entire Results and Discussion section, including the optimization and regression equations, completely omits any analysis of electrode wear rate. This is a major inconsistency. The authors must either include the full analysis for electrode wear rate or remove its mention from the abstract and introduction.
2. Incomplete Methodological Details: The methodology lacks crucial information required for the experiment's reproducibility. Please specify:
   • Workpiece: The supplier, initial porosity percentage, and average cell size of the Titanium Foam Grade V.
   • Tool Electrode: The diameter of the pure brass wire used.
   • Dielectric Fluid: The type of dielectric fluid used and its flushing pressure, as this significantly affects MRR and SR.
   • SR Measurement: The instrument used for measuring Surface Roughness (Ra) and the specific cut-off length and evaluation length used for the measurements.
3. Low-Quality Figures and Missing Labels: All figures are of low resolution and are not suitable for publication.
   • Figure 2 & 3: These are blurry photographs. They should be replaced with high-resolution images. Figure 2, in particular, is not clearly labeled and it is difficult to distinguish the machine setup.
   • Figure 4 & 5: The text and axes on these plots are pixelated and difficult to read. They must be re-exported from the statistical software at a higher resolution.
   • Figure 6 & 7 (SEM Images): These images lack scale bars and magnification indicators, which are absolutely essential for interpreting micrographs. These must be added.
4. Absence of ANOVA Tables: The paper mentions using the Box-Behnken method and develops regression models, implying that an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed. However, the ANOVA tables for MRR and SR are not presented. These tables are critical for validating the model's significance, and for quantifying the statistical significance and percentage contribution of each parameter. Please include the full ANOVA tables.
5. Vagueness in Conclusion and Abstract: Statements like "Pulse on time has been considered as one of the most effective parameters" are too vague for a scientific paper. Based on the (to be included) ANOVA tables, this should be quantified. For example: "Pulse on time was found to be the most significant factor affecting both MRR and SR, with a contribution of X% and Y%, respectively."
6. Formatting of Regression Equations: The regression equations in section 4.3 are poorly formatted and difficult to read. They should be properly typeset using an equation editor. The multiplication symbol (*) should be used consistently or omitted where contextually clear (e.g., between a coefficient and a variable term). Breaking the equations into multiple lines for clarity is also recommended.
7. Unclear Multi-Objective Optimization Plot (Fig. 4): The ramp function graph for multi-objective optimization is presented without sufficient explanation. The text should clearly explain how to interpret this plot. What do the red vertical lines and the numbers in brackets ([ ]) signify? The desirability value (D) should also be explained.
8. Structure of "Results and Discussion": This section is not well-structured. It begins abruptly with the multi-objective optimization results. It would be more logical to first present the results for each individual response (MRR and SR), including the ANOVA tables and main effect plots. Following this, the regression models can be presented. The multi-objective optimization and the SEM analysis should then follow as a synthesis of the individual results.
9. Insufficient Discussion in SEM Analysis: The SEM analysis (section 4.4) provides a good description of the surface morphology but lacks a deeper discussion. The authors should explicitly link the observed features (craters, recast layer, globules) to the specific machining parameters used to create those surfaces (as listed in the captions of Fig. 6 & 7). For example, explain why higher pulse-on time leads to larger craters and a thicker recast layer, referencing the energy of the spark.
10. Proofreading and Citation Formatting: The manuscript requires thorough proofreading for grammatical errors and typos (e.g., "rapture of the brass wire" should be "rupture," "are on" should be "arc on"). Furthermore, the formatting of the author list on the title page is unconventional ("Thia Paul¹, Sohel Rahaman 2..."). Affiliations should be clearly linked using numerical superscripts for all authors.

General Comments

The manuscript presents an experimental investigation into the effects of Wire Electrical Discharge Machining (WEDM) parameters on the machining of Hastelloy C276, a material of significant industrial importance. The study utilizes Response Surface Methodology (RSM) with a Box-Behnken Design to model and optimize key output responses, namely Material Removal Rate (MRR) and Surface Roughness (SR). The focus on surface morphology, including the analysis of the recast layer and micro-voids via SEM, is a valuable contribution.

The paper is well-structured, following a logical progression from introduction to conclusion. The research question is clearly defined, and the chosen methodology (RSM) is appropriate for this type of parametric study. The findings regarding the influence of discharge energy on surface topography, such as the formation of "coral reef-like microstructures," are interesting and well-described.

However, the manuscript suffers from several significant shortcomings that must be addressed before it can be considered for publication. The most critical issue is the lack of essential data and analysis (specifically, ANOVA tables) required to validate the statistical models. The presentation quality is another major concern; all figures are of low resolution, which hinders a proper evaluation of the presented results. Finally, the manuscript requires thorough proofreading to correct numerous formatting errors, inconsistencies, and vague statements.

While the research is promising, its scientific rigor and clarity must be substantially improved.

Specific Corrections and Suggestions

Here are 10 points that need to be addressed:

1. Missing ANOVA Tables: The paper develops regression models for MRR and SR and claims R² values above 0.95. However, the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tables are not provided. These tables are essential for validating the significance of the models, identifying which parameters are statistically significant, and quantifying their percentage contribution to the responses. The manuscript cannot be validated without them.
2. Poor Quality of All Figures: All figures (1 through 6) are low-resolution, pixelated, and unsuitable for publication. They must be replaced with high-resolution vector graphics (for plots) or high-quality images. In Fig. 4, the text and axes are nearly unreadable. In Fig. 6, the scale bar is blurry.
3. Incomplete Experimental Details: The methodology lacks crucial details needed for reproducibility.
   • Dielectric Fluid: Stating it is a "Water and oil mixture" is insufficient. The specific type of deionized water and oil, their ratio, conductivity, and the flushing pressure must be specified.
   • Workpiece Material: Provide the chemical composition and initial hardness of the Hastelloy C276 workpiece.
   • SR Measurement: The instrument and specific parameters used for measuring Surface Roughness (e.g., cut-off length, evaluation length, number of measurements per sample) are not mentioned.
4. Incorrect Section Numbering and Formatting: There is a clear error in section numbering. The "Analysis of SEM Microstructure" is labeled as section "3.5" when it should be "4.4". The regression equations in section 4.3 are poorly formatted and should be properly typeset. The author list on the title page also has inconsistent formatting.
5. Vague and Qualitative Statements: The paper contains vague statements that should be quantified. For instance, the conclusion states that a "good material removal rate" can be achieved. This should be replaced with the actual optimized value from the study (e.g., "an optimized MRR of 1.760 mm³/min"). Similarly, conclusions from the ANOVA should be specific (e.g., "Pulse-on time was the most significant factor for SR, with a contribution of 65%").
6. Unclear Multi-objective Optimization Plot: Figure 3, the ramp function graph for multi-objective optimization, is presented without an adequate explanation. The text should guide the reader on how to interpret the plot, explaining the meaning of the desirability value (D), the red vertical lines, and the values in brackets [ ].
7. Inconsistent and Incomplete SEM Analysis: While the descriptions are good, the analysis is inconsistent. Figure 5 (best surface finish) has a clear scale bar, but its magnification is not stated. Figure 6 (maximum surface roughness) has a blurry scale bar and also lacks a stated magnification. Both are essential for proper interpretation.
8. Flawed Reference List: The reference list needs careful revision. Reference [7] appears to be two separate papers incorrectly combined into one. There are also formatting inconsistencies throughout the list. All references must be checked for accuracy and formatted according to the journal's guidelines.
9. Redundant Phrasing in Methodology: The description of RSM in Section 2 ("Research Methodology") is overly simplistic and contains circular phrasing (e.g., "RSM helps to acquire the dependent variable. Several independent variables define this dependent variable."). This section should be rewritten with more concise, professional language.
10. Ambiguous Title for Table 2: Table 2 is titled "Multiple Response Prediction," but it only shows a single optimal setting. A more accurate title would be "Optimal Parameter Settings for Multi-Response Optimization" or "Predicted Responses at Optimal Settings."

In the present investigation, the performance of Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM) was evaluated on aluminium alloy 6061-T6. Currently, the manuscript simply looks like a report, and the authors need to modify it drastically and convert it into a manuscript format. The following few corrections will help authors in doing so:

• Completely modify the Introduction section and include only the necessary past work that is fully aligned with the current research. Currently, the introduction section is full of unrelated past work (like PMEDM, μ-EDM, residual stress, Dielectric Effects, and Thermal-Stress Behavior, etc.). Accordingly, unnecessary references should be avoided, and papers from the last 5 years can be included. It is better to avoid subheadings like those that the authors have provided in their manuscript.

• Following references will help to find the past research, research gaps, novelty, etc.: i) https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-019-1805-9 ii) Study-the-Effect-of-Material-Removal-Rate-in-Diesinking-EDM-for-Inconel-800-using-Response-Surface-Methodology.pdf iii) https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218625X25501744 iv) https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-013-0524-x v) https://doi.org/10.1080/21693277.2014.902341 vi) https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/4572676

• Clearly state the research gap and novelty of the current work.

• This is a manuscript—do not mention the word "chapter."

• Each figure should have a specific figure number and corresponding caption. If there is a subfigure, provide a corresponding number. Fig. 1 & 2, Fig. 3 & 4, etc., are wrongly given and need to be modified.

• Table 5 (A), (B), (C) are different tables and should have separate captions and table numbers.

• Many figures are too small to understand and should be enlarged and made clearly visible.

• For the ANOVA table and contour plot, proper references need to be provided. Authors can take help from the following past works: i) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.05.007 ii) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.07.087

• It is better to avoid the term "Edming." There is no such technical word.

• Limitations and future scope can be added in the Conclusion section.

General Comments

This manuscript attempts to provide a comprehensive overview of the thermal, tribological, and morphological characteristics of fiber-reinforced polymer composites. The scope is ambitious, covering a wide range of topics from manufacturing techniques and filler effects to coating performance and experimental analysis. The inclusion of a large summary table (Table 3) shows a significant effort to collate existing literature.

However, the paper suffers from a fundamental structural and identity crisis: it is presented as a review but contains a significant section with original experimental work ("Preliminary investigation on abrasive wear analysis..."). A manuscript should either be a focused review paper that synthesizes and critiques existing literature or an original research paper that uses a literature review to contextualize new findings. This hybrid approach is confusing and weakens both aspects.

Furthermore, the overall quality of presentation is significantly below the standard required for publication. The document is replete with grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and formatting issues in tables and figures that make it difficult to read and interpret. The literature review sections often read like a list of summaries rather than a cohesive synthesis that identifies trends, contradictions, and gaps in the field.

The authors must first decide on the primary purpose of this paper (review or research article) and then extensively revise it to address the structural, presentational, and scientific issues outlined below.

Specific Corrections and Suggestions

1. Resolve Structural Identity: The paper must be restructured.
   • Option A (Review Paper): Remove the entire "Preliminary investigation..." section (Material preparation, Experimental details, Surface Morphology) and focus on deeply analyzing and synthesizing the literature summarized in Table 3.
   • Option B (Research Paper): Shorten the literature review to be a focused introduction that directly leads to the hypothesis of the new experimental work. The current format is not viable.
2. Poor Figure and Table Quality: All figures and tables require a complete overhaul.
   • Figures: All plots and images (Fig 1-5) are low-resolution and pixelated. Text within the figures is difficult to read. SEM images must include clear scale bars and magnification indicators in the image itself, not just the caption.
   • Tables: Table 1, 2, and 3 are poorly formatted and nearly unreadable. Data is misaligned, and in Table 3, the columns are not properly separated, appearing as a wall of text. These must be professionally formatted.
3. Lack of Synthesis in Literature Review: The sections on the effects of fillers, fiber orientation, and length (e.g., "Fiber/filler effects on polymer composites abrasive wear") primarily list findings from other papers (e.g., "X found this," "Y investigated that"). A strong review must synthesize this information. For example, instead of just listing results, discuss why different fibers (glass vs. carbon) behave differently or identify conflicting results in the literature and propose possible reasons.
4. Unclear and Inconsistent Sectioning: The paper lacks a logical heading structure. The section numbering is inconsistent (e.g., there is a section 1.3 and 1.5 but no 1.1, 1.2, or 1.4). The headings should be reorganized into a clear hierarchy (e.g., Section 2: Factors Affecting Wear Performance, Section 2.1: Effect of Fiber Type, Section 2.2: Effect of Fiber Orientation, etc.).
5. Extensive Language and Grammatical Errors: The manuscript requires thorough professional proofreading. Sentences are often convoluted and grammatically incorrect. For example: "Material of abrasive, size of abrasive particle and shape of abrasive particle and its effect on wear behavior of composite material is noticed." A clearer version would be: "This review examines the effects of abrasive material properties—such as particle size and shape—on the wear behavior of polymer composites."
6. Vague and Subjective Conclusions: The conclusions are too general and lack specific, evidence-based insights from the review. For instance, the statement "Results obtained during abrading of test specimens in three body abrasion is far - far better in comparison to similar testing during two body abrasion" is vague. "Better" in what way? More accurate? More repeatable? More relevant to a specific application? The conclusions must be specific and directly supported by the content of the paper.
7. Inconsistent Citations and References: The citation style is inconsistent. For example, in the "Fiber orientation" section, Figure 1 is cited as [18], but the text also refers to [19], [20], and [21-25] in a confusing manner. The reference list itself needs to be checked for completeness and consistent formatting according to a standard journal style.
8. Clarify the "Preliminary Investigation" Section: If the authors choose to restructure this as a research paper, this section needs more detail. The "Experimental details" are too brief. It mentions using ASTM G65 but doesn't report key parameters like wheel speed, specific abrasive used (beyond "dry sand"), or the duration of the tests. The SEM analysis needs to be more quantitative and less descriptive.
9. Overly Broad Abstract: The abstract lists all the topics covered but fails to state the paper's main argument, key findings, or contribution. It reads like a table of contents. A good abstract should summarize the problem, the approach, the key results, and the main conclusion in a concise narrative.
10. Improve Table 3's Utility: As it stands, Table 3 is a massive, unformatted data dump. If retained in a review, it should be restructured for clarity. The "Findings and lacuna" column is especially important but is underdeveloped. For each entry, the authors should explicitly state the gap ("lacuna") that the study leaves open (e.g., "Study focused on angular silica; effect of rounded abrasives remains unknown"). This would transform the table from a simple list into a valuable tool for future researchers.

How can biomass improve the properties of plastic-derived pyrolysis oil by reducing its reactivity, and flow behavior?

Cite evidences to prove that plastics enhance the yield and quality of bio-oil from biomass?

How does catalyst loading optimize the yield and quality of the bio-oils?

In what aspect the bio-oil produced is better than the conventional diesel? Is it economically viable for commercial use?

The manuscript presents an innovative drone-based on-demand fuel delivery system addressing roadside emergencies. While the concept is highly original and relevant, the submission lacks methodological detail, results, discussion, and references. Substantial improvements in technical depth and scholarly rigor are required for publication consideration.

• Font size of main title should be higher than the sub title

• Numbering of the main title should be bold instead of the numbering of the sub title, e.g.,

2.1. Stage 1: Experimental Machining and Sensor-Based Data Acquisition

2.1.1. Machining Setup

• There is no numbering in reference no. 15