Peer review report.

Based on the design of the experiment which so called Central Composite design by Response
Surface Methodology, the writer has successfully descriptive his objective of the experiment and
able to identify what responses that he want to measure and the writer capable to sort on the
method of how to measure those responses by list down the reliable variables for the experiment.
During the designed experiment, there should be a range of variables values, from good to bad.
The measurement scale used needs to sensitive enough to quantify the differences from run to
run. The writer able to pinpoint the exact ranges of changes in each variables that he wants to
detect but he not able to justify on verifying his reliability on how he manage to find those ranges
of variables.
Below are the exact ranges of changes in each variable that writer wants to detect:

In identifying the factors and levels of experiment responses, the writer is competent enough to
list all the factors that could possibly influence any of the responses that he want to measure.
Then, the writer able to justify which factor is easily controllable or difficult to control. From this
list, the writer able to decide on how many and which factors that he want to include in the
experiment whether those factors will be held constant, monitored, or ignored.

The above graphic show that how the writer comes out the way to justify his responses for the
experiment. This has proved that the writer has positively clarifying his objective of the
experiment. Identifying quantifiable responses is one of the most important steps of a successful
DOE. A measured response is the best type of response. During the designed experiment, there
should be a range of variables values, from good to bad. The measurement scale used needs to
sensitive enough to quantify the differences from run to run.

Unfortunately, the writer did not able to explain on how he could determine number of run of
design experiment which generated by dx software for independent variables of electrospinning
process. Why there were 15 of design experiment? How much of alpha value? How many block
that writer chooses? Why using small CCD designs?
For general information, there is three-factor layout for this CCD is pictured below. It is
composed of a core factorial that forms a cube with sides that are two coded units in length (from
-1 to +1 as noted in the table above). The stars represent axial points. How far out from the cube
these should go is a matter for much discussion between statisticians. The dx software has
designate this distance alpha measured in terms of coded factor levels.

There are many option suggested by dx software for alpha value, which can be seen at graphic
below:

From the journal, the writer seems do not able to share his alpha value or his DOE before sharing
his result.