1. Reject Revise Accept

2. Reject

3. it did not meet one or more of the required standards for publication in Materials Characterization.

4. Unfortunately, we are not able to consider it further for publication. The reason for this is that we receive many more papers than we can publish and so we are forced to pre-select those papers which we believe will interest the widest possible proportion of our readership.

5. I regret to inform you that your manuscript did not obtain a sufficient priority rating in relation to the space available for publication for us to be able to give it any further consideration for publication in Materials and Design. I am sorry not to be able to give you better news, and wish you success in publishing this paper elsewhere. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

6. First Revise

7. Ref. No.: TRIBINT-D-09-00024 Title: Estimation of Wear Rate in Dual Phase Steel on the Basis of the Load Sharing Between Constituent Phases Tribology International Dear Dr Tyagi, Our referees are supportive of the publication of your paper subject to minor revision. I attach comments which I have received from our referees and would be grateful if you could address the points raised. I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript by the. To submit a revision, please go to http://ees.elsevier.com/tribint/ and login as an Author. On your Main Menu page is a folder entitled "Submissions Needing Revision". You will find your submission record there. We look forward to receiving your revised paper as soon as possible. Best Regards, Philippa Cann Editor Tribology International

8. Editor note: in your answer to reviewer comments (see rev. 1) please indicate very clearly what is new and novel in this paper and has not been published before. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: The paper is good but there are a lot of overlaps between this paper and other papers that the authors have been published in the field of dual phase steel, by the way: 1- First of all I want to know the information represented in this paper covers more than 60% of the others paper of yours? 2- What is the main innovation of this paper rather than other dual phase papers?, especially:" Modeling of dry sliding oxidative wear in two phase materials“

9. Reviewer #2 1. The last ten lines of the Introduction section give mainly the summary of the work carried out. It looks like a repeat of the Abstract section. Therefore, it would be much better to mention the aim or the purpose of the work at the end of the Introduction section, instead of repeating the abstract. 2. Equation 13 should be given after the statement of "Therefore, one may write", (Line 51). 3. The statement "The difference in the calculated and the observed wear rates may be attributed to the flow of the softer phase of ferrite over the hard martensite islands ….." given in the Results and Discussion and Conclusions sections can be verified by examining the wear surfaces using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). 4. It is known that the dry sliding friction and wear behaviour of dual phase steel has been studied by a large number of researchers. Therefore, the explanations provided for the results, especially the differences between the calculated and the observed friction coefficients and wear rates should be supported by relevant references. 5. The Conclusions section contains information regarding summary of the work and discussion of the results. This is not the correct way to present a scientific paper. Therefore, it would be much better to give the conclusions separately in a clear and concise manner.

10. Response to revision

11. Accept

12. I am very pleased to inform you that the above paper has now been accepted for publication in Wear.

16. Last Revise: Proof

18. Copyright

19. Off Print

20. questionnaire

21. Color Printing Form