|
★ 小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包,谢谢回帖
Reviewers' comments:
(1) The research highlights are unintelligible. Possibly because of the undefined symbols, or possibly because of poor highlights. However, they are not acceptable.
(2) No mesure of reproducibility. The order of the polarisation curves in each figure appears totally random. Any trends here, must come from a statistically derived scatter band through reproducibility experiments.
(3) Do not use the word "anti-corrosion". There are correct and accepted words for this.
(4) The introduction should not describe "low cost". That is irrelevant and there are no costs or reference to this provided.
(5) The word "behavior" should be used in singular form only. The same is true for "literature", "discussion" and "research".
(6) Polarization curves show no pitting potentials. It is hard to see where these numbers come from.
(7) No trends are shown in Fig 3. In addition, the parameters are all independent of the chloride concentration, which for `Epit at least, is nonsense.
(8) The use of 5 mV/s is too fast to determine any form of corrosion parameter to be determined. It will not give a icorr, Ecorr or Epit.
(9) It is hard to see how these electrodes were made. The only description is Fig 1, which is a poor photo. Does the electrode have only one side with exposed metal, or are both sides exposed. The image in Fig 1 appears to show the left end fully coated and the right end fully exposed. Without a full description, the electrochemistry is not clear at all.
(10) The XPS spectra in Fig 5 are after "electrochemically corroded in 1 M NaCl solution". However, the caption does not state at what potential, or whether this was after some potential scan. Perhaps it was after one of the polarization curves? Whatever it is, it is undefined.
(11) Further, if it is after polarisation curve measurement, then the XPS does not show any sort of passive film, since the metal has been corroding actively. Mostly what is seen here is corrosion product. The problem with this paper is that it does not tell the reader exactly what was done and how it was done.
(12) The current density scale in Fig 2 is a complete mystery. The units of the y axes are "10 mA/mm^2". What does this mean????
(13) There are many further major problems with this paper, both in the poor description of what was done, in the analysis of the results and in the interpretation. The subject is interesting, but the paper is not rigorous.
(14) The paper should not be published in this present state. Reject. |
|