Investigation of wear behaviour and surface analysis of a coated H13 material for friction drilling application

Saravanan Balakrishnan; Selvakumar Subbaiah; Mathew Alphonse; Robert Čep; Sachin Salunkhe; Emad Abouel Nasr

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0328168

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 31, 2025
2 May 2025 Decision Letter - Himadri Majumder, Editor Dear Dr. Salunkhe, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. ============================== ACADEMIC EDITOR: As per reviewers' feedback the authors need to revise their manuscript and take the task of major revision. ============================== Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 16 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Himadri Majumder, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “The authors also extend their appreciation to King Saud University for funding the publication of this work through Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP2025R164), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. This article was co-funded by the European Union under the REFRESH – Research Excellence For Region Sustainability and High-tech Industries project number CZ.10.03.01/00/22_003/0000048 via the Operational Programme Just Transition and has been done in connection with project Students Grant Competition SP2024/087 “Specific Research of Sustainable Manufacturing Technologies” financed by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports and Faculty of Mechanical Engineering VŠB-TUO. Article has been done in connection with project Students Grant Competition SP2024/087 “Specific Research of Sustainable Manufacturing Technologies” financed by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports and Faculty of Mechanical Engineering VŠB-TUO.” We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “The authors also extend their appreciation to King Saud University for funding the publication of this work through Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP2025R164), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. This article was co-funded by the European Union under the REFRESH – Research Excellence For Region Sustainability and High-tech Industries project number CZ.10.03.01/00/22_003/0000048 via the Operational Programme Just Transition and has been done in connection with project Students Grant Competition SP2024/087 “Specific Research of Sustainable Manufacturing Technologies” financed by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports and Faculty of Mechanical Engineering VŠB-TUO. Article has been done in connection with project Students Grant Competition SP2024/087 “Specific Research of Sustainable Manufacturing Technologies” financed by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports and Faculty of Mechanical Engineering VŠB-TUO.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.] Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes Reviewer #4: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Comments for the Author: Authors have focused on interesting area. The paper is well written and structured. Comment 1: The coefficient of friction (COF) for the AlCrN coating is reported as 0.046; however, in Figure 3, the observed value appears to be approximately 0.7. The authors are requested to verify these findings and make the necessary corrections. Comment 2: Compared to untreated and heat-treated specimens, the AlCrN-coated samples show a decrease in wear resistance due to increased hardness. While this explanation is logically acceptable, it raises a question: how is a reduction in the coefficient of friction observed for these coated samples? A scientific explanation for this phenomenon is required. Although improved hardness is generally associated with better wear resistance, it does not directly correlate with a reduction in the coefficient of friction. Comment 3: In Figure 2, wear loss is plotted against time for different samples. However, the wear loss appears to remain constant over time. Typically, wear loss is expected to increase as time progresses. The authors are requested to clarify this observation. Please also check and revise the English and grammar used in the figure caption and related discussion. Comment 4: The references cited in the manuscript appear to be relevant and up-to-date. However, it might be beneficial to ensure that a broader range of studies, can be added such as https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2024.2323437 https://doi.org/10.1177/0267084424124112 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.12.062. DOI: 10.18185/erzifbed.430628 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4051225 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.04.015 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-020-02721-8. Comment 5: The manuscript needs to check for English language and grammatical correction. Reviewer #2: 1. In abstract, “where carried out” should be “were carried out”; “Oxditation” should be “Oxidation”. In the introduction, “subtract” instead of “substrate”; “steelies” instead of “steel’s”. Similarly, the manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors and typos. 2. The friction coefficient (COF) values, like 0.014 for TiAlN, are suspiciously low and potentially incorrect. 3. Coefficient of friction values reported in the abstract, results, and conclusion vary. For example, 0.417 in one place, 0.147 in another). 4. The sliding distance mentioned in the experimental procedure is 1000 m. Is it correct? 5. The PVD method is mentioned but not explained well. Details about deposition parameters (duration, pressure, thickness) are missing. So, add a brief explanation of the coating technique (PVD – sputtering/evaporation) and specify process conditions (deposition time, substrate temperature, etc.). 6. Repetitive figure labels. For example, multiple "Figure 2". 7. In the results and analysis section, graphs and images are described without deep analysis. So, improve data interpretation by relating wear patterns to hardness and microstructural changes. 8. Clearly explain how temperature, load, and coating composition relate to observed wear types (abrasive, adhesive, and oxidation). 9. The element content isn't quantified (e.g., atomic% % of Fe, N). So, provide a table summarising the EDS elemental analysis results. 10. The image quality of most of the figures is very poor. Also, the labelling is not clear. For example, in Fig. 5, sublabels are not very clear, and in Fig. 6, sublabels are not available. So, check all the figures properly and provide a better quality image along with proper labelling. 11. In the result and analysis section, no data is reported with interpreting trends or connecting with previous literature. 12. There are numerous technical errors throughout the manuscript. For instance, in Table 2, the parameter "Sy" is listed but not defined or discussed in the text—there is no explanation of what "Sy" represents, nor how it relates to surface roughness or wear behaviour. Reviewer #3: The article is very interesing and industry relevant. 1. The research novelty should be clearer indicated. 2. Figure 1: The photo has low quality; improve it 3. The introduction should emphasize the novelty of the given approach. 4. Figure 2: The photo has low quality; improve it 5. Figure 3: Legend is missing 6. Figure 7: Legend is missing 7. Figure 8: Legend is missing 8. The abstract should include information about new methods, results, concepts, and conclusions. Author need to rewrite the abstract in its current form to incorporate more information about the achievements described in the manuscript. 9. In tribological analysis, the material pair should be given in the drawings. Why was the disk material different from the processed material? 10. The roughness parameter should be specified 11. The study should discuss the practical impact of coating on drilling tool performance. How does the improved wear resistance translate into tool life enhancement? More discussion on industrial applications would strengthen the manuscript. 12. The conclusion summarizes key findings but lacks a clear direction for future research. Reviewer #4: 1. The tool photograph is shown, but the tool design is not shown or discussed. Provide the tool design or its citation. 2. Check the English language presentation. 3. Include note on bosh and bush formation. 4. Highlight the need for using H13 as tool material ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: Yes: Avinash Borgaonkar Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Amlana Panda Reviewer #4: Yes: V.K.BUPESH RAJA ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328168.r001
Revision 1
20 May 2025 Author Response Title: Investigation of Wear Behaviour and Surface Analysis of a Coated H13 Material for Friction Drilling Application Reviewer Comments & Authors Response Reviewer 1 Sl. No. Reviewer Comments Authors Response 1 The coefficient of friction (COF) for the AlCrN coating is reported as 0.046; however, in Figure 3, the observed value appears to be approximately 0.7. The authors are requested to verify these findings and make the necessary corrections. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. The Coefficient of Friction (CoF) values are corrected. “Recorded on Page No. 2, 9 & 19.” 2 Compared to untreated and heat-treated specimens, the AlCrN-coated samples show a decrease in wear resistance due to increased hardness. While this explanation is logically acceptable, it raises a question: how is a reduction in the coefficient of friction observed for these coated samples? A scientific explanation for this phenomenon is required. Although improved hardness is generally associated with better wear resistance, it does not directly correlate with a reduction in the coefficient of friction. The tribological behaviour of the different surface conditions were reflected in the observed values of Coefficient of Friction (CoF). The untreated sample indicating a strong adhesion as well as sliding resistance because of higher CoF value of 0.713. The heated sample observed little reduced CoF of 0.591, by altering the surface with the presence of oxidation. The TiAlN coating is unique for high hardness; reduce friction through smooth sliding and low adhesion. A low friction value is observed when TiAlN coating is deposited on polished substrates which enhance wear resistance. Hence the surface performance has resulted in 0.046 of CoF for a TiAlN coated H13 steel and also because of a lubricious aluminium oxide (Al₂O₃) tribolayer formed at elevated temperature. The AlCrN, with a CoF of 0.416 improves the performance. This helps in offering better oxidation resistance and balanced CoF helps in withstanding high load as well as high temperature applications. 3 In Figure 2, wear loss is plotted against time for different samples. However, the wear loss appears to remain constant over time. Typically, wear loss is expected to increase as time progresses. The authors are requested to clarify this observation. Please also check and revise the English and grammar used in the figure caption and related discussion. Thanks for pointing out the mistake, Figure 4 updated “Recorded on Page No. 8.” 4 The references cited in the manuscript appear to be relevant and up-to-date. However, it might be beneficial to ensure that a broader range of studies, can be added such as https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2024.2323437 https://doi.org/10.1177/0267084424124112 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.12.062. DOI: 10.18185/erzifbed.430628 https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4051225 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2020.04.015 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-020-02721-8. All the articles cited except this because of an error (https://doi.org/10.1177/0267084424124112) 5 The manuscript needs to check for English language and grammatical correction. Thanks for pointing out. The entire manuscript has carefully revised. Reviewer 2 Sl. No. Reviewer Comments Authors Response 1 In abstract, “where carried out” should be “were carried out”; “Oxditation” should be “Oxidation”. In the introduction, “subtract” instead of “substrate”; “steelies” instead of “steel’s”. Similarly, the manuscript contains numerous grammatical errors and typos. Thanks for pointing out. The entire manuscript has carefully revised. 2 The friction coefficient (COF) values, like 0.014 for TiAlN, are suspiciously low and potentially incorrect. The TiAlN coating is unique for high hardness; reduce friction through smooth sliding and low adhesion. A low friction value is observed when TiAlN coating is deposited on polished substrates which enhance wear resistance. Hence the surface performance has resulted in 0.046 of CoF for a TiAlN coated H13 steel. 3 Coefficient of friction values reported in the abstract, results, and conclusion varies. For example, 0.417 in one place, 0.147 in another). Thanks for pointing out. The entire manuscript has carefully revised. “Recorded on Page No. 2, 9 & 19.” 4 The sliding distance mentioned in the experimental procedure is 1000 m. Is it correct? Thanks for pointing out. The correct sliding distance is 200 m “Recorded on Page No. 5.” 5 The PVD method is mentioned but not explained well. Details about deposition parameters (duration, pressure, thickness) are missing. So, add a brief explanation of the coating technique (PVD – sputtering/evaporation) and specify process conditions (deposition time, substrate temperature, etc.). Thanks for pointing out. The experimental procedure added. “Recorded on Page No. 5.” 6 Repetitive figure labels. For example, multiple "Figure 2". Thanks for pointing out the mistake. Now its corrected 7 In the results and analysis section, graphs and images are described without deep analysis. So, improve data interpretation by relating wear patterns to hardness and microstructural changes. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. Now its corrected 8 Clearly explain how temperature, load, and coating composition relate to observed wear types (abrasive, adhesive, and oxidation). The wear behaviour significantly influenced by the temperature, coating composition and load. The oxidation tendency of coating is determined by temperature. The AlCrN coating forms stable with the help of elevated temperature which helps in reducing the adhesive wear. The TiAlN coating exhibited thermal stability also can observed dense microstructure which result in oxidation resistance upto 800 °C. Whereas the load influences the contact pressure, promotes abrasive wear. The load enhances surface adhesion leads to severe adhesive wear. The coating composition impacts chemical stability, toughness and hardness. The AlCrN coating helps in resist the abrasive wear, because of higher hardness, whereas the TiAlN coating because of softer surface offers oxidation resistance also balance the abrasive and adhesive wear 9 The element content isn't quantified (e.g., atomic% % of Fe, N). So, provide a table summarising the EDS elemental analysis results. Thanks for pointing out “Recorded on Page No. 13.” 10 The image quality of most of the figures is very poor. Also, the labelling is not clear. For example, in Fig. 5, sublabels are not very clear, and in Fig. 6, sublabels are not available. So, check all the figures properly and provide a better quality image along with proper labelling. Thanks for pointing out Figure quality improved 11 In the result and analysis section, no data is reported with interpreting trends or connecting with previous literature. Added 12 There are numerous technical errors throughout the manuscript. For instance, in Table 2, the parameter "Sy" is listed but not defined or discussed in the text—there is no explanation of what "Sy" represents, nor how it relates to surface roughness or wear behaviour. Now it’s done “Recorded on Page No. 14.” Reviewer 3 Sl. No. Reviewer Comments Authors Response 1 The research novelty should be clearer indicated. Thanks for pointing out, Novelty added in the Abstract as well as introduction “Recorded on Page No. 2” 2 Figure 1: The photo has low quality; improve it Improved “Recorded on Page No.6” 3 The introduction should emphasize the novelty of the given approach. Novelty added in the Abstract as well as introduction 4 Figure 2: The photo has low quality; improve it Improved “Recorded on Page No.6” 5 Figure 3: Legend is missing Thanks for pointing out, now it’s added 6 Figure 7: Legend is missing Thanks for pointing out, now it’s added 7 Figure 8: Legend is missing Thanks for pointing out, now it’s added 8 The abstract should include information about new methods, results, concepts, and conclusions. Author need to rewrite the abstract in its current form to incorporate more information about the achievements described in the manuscript. Thanks for pointing out, now it’s added 9 In tribological analysis, the material pair should be given in the drawings. Why was the disk material different from the processed material? The Disc used for this study is EN 31 with higher hardness of 62 HRC. 10 The roughness parameter should be specified Added in the session 3.3 “Recorded on Page No.14” 11 The study should discuss the practical impact of coating on drilling tool performance. How does the improved wear resistance translate into tool life enhancement? More discussion on industrial applications would strengthen the manuscript. Thanks for pointing out, the practical impact of nitriding and its industrial applications have already been discussed in the introduction. To strengthen the discussion, a few additional points were also included 12 The conclusion summarizes key findings but lacks a clear direction for future research Thanks for pointing out, now it’s added Reviewer 4 Sl. No. Reviewer Comments Authors Response 1 The tool photograph is shown, but the tool design is not shown or discussed. Provide the tool design or its citation. Thanks for pointing out, added in Figure 2 b “Recorded on Page No.7” 2 Check the English language presentation. The entire manuscript checked 3 Include note on bosh and bush formation. Thanks for pointing out, now it’s added “Recorded on Page No.4” 4 Highlight the need for using H13 as tool material Thanks for pointing out, now it’s added “Recorded on Page No.4” Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments (1).docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328168.r002
12 Jun 2025 Decision Letter - Himadri Majumder, Editor Dear Dr. Salunkhe, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 27 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Himadri Majumder, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: Comment to author Comment 1: The time considered for measurement of wear rate shown in figure 4 about 10 second is very short. Why is author selected such shorter period to evaluate the wear rate of the specimen? Comment 2: Same for the coefficient of friction as shown in figure 5 about 10 second is very short. Why is author selected such shorter period? Comment 3: In Fig 5, The white line indicates the CoF and the red line indicates the displacement of the probe in a horizontal direction during testing. For untreated, heated and AlCrN samples both signals are exhibiting similar kind of trend. But for TiAlN why CoF is lowered drastically, can author explain physics behind this? Comment 4: Fig 11 b shows the formation of the bushing and the surface roughness, is there any technique which can be implemented to avoid or reduce the formation of the bushing? Comment 5: While the references cited in the manuscript are relevant and reasonably up-to-date, it would strengthen the work to include a broader range of recent studies in the field to ensure comprehensive coverage of current advancements. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16041594 doi:10.1177/13506501231184304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1152-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-020-1266-y. Reviewer #3: In overall, the organization of the paper is good and worthy of publication. Researchers have answered all the comments. Now the paper is accepted and recommended for publication. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328168.r003
Revision 2
14 Jun 2025 Author Response Title: Investigation of Wear Behaviour and Surface Analysis of a Coated H13 Material for Friction Drilling Application Reviewer Comments & Authors Response Reviewer 1 Sl. No. Reviewer Comments Authors Response 1 The time considered for measurement of wear rate shown in figure 4 about 10 second is very short. Why author is selected such shorter period to evaluate the wear rate of the specimen? Thanks for pointing out the mistake. The wear rate taken is for 10 Minutes only. It is already mentioned in chapter 2 experiment procedure. 2 Same for the coefficient of friction as shown in figure 5 about 10 second is very short. Why author is selected such shorter period? Thanks for pointing out the mistake, the wear study has done for 10 minutes only. Updated in manuscript 3 In Fig 5, The white line indicates the CoF and the red line indicates the displacement of the probe in a horizontal direction during testing. For untreated, heated and AlCrN samples both signals are exhibiting similar kind of trend. But for TiAlN why CoF is lowered drastically, can author explain physics behind this? Figure updated, Thanks 4 Fig 11 b shows the formation of the bushing and the surface roughness, is there any technique which can be implemented to avoid or reduce the formation of the bushing? In friction drilling, bushing formation can be reduced by optimizing speed, tool geometry, lubrication, and backing support—but bushing remains a key factor for thread engagement and joint strength. 5 While the references cited in the manuscript are relevant and reasonably up-to-date, it would strengthen the work to include a broader range of recent studies in the field to ensure comprehensive coverage of current advancements. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16041594 doi:10.1177/13506501231184304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1152-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-020-1266-y. All the references cited in the manuscript, thanks for the support. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328168.r004
27 Jun 2025 Decision Letter - Himadri Majumder, Editor Investigation of Wear Behaviour and Surface Analysis of a Coated H13 Material for Friction Drilling Application PONE-D-25-17191R2 Dear Dr. Salunkhe, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Himadri Majumder, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The authors have carefully addressed all reviewer comments and incorporated the suggestions. The manuscript focuses on an interesting and relevant research area, which has been further strengthened in the revision. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328168.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Himadri Majumder, Editor PONE-D-25-17191R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Salunkhe, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Himadri Majumder Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328168.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .