Journal:  

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

Ref manuscript ID HMT-D-21-00722
Manuscript title “New Correlations for Heat Transfer in Parallel-Plate
Ducts at Low Peclet Number”

Comments to authors:

In this work, the authors proposed new correlations to evaluate quantities of engineering
interest in the case of heat transfer of laminar flow inside parallel-plate ducts at low
Peclet number. Important estimates were also provided in this study, as the local Nusselt
number, thermal entry length, and fully developed Nusselt number. These correlations
drawn in this contribution will be quite precise and reasonably straightforward and
suitable for a wide range of applications.
in general , this work submited by the autorrs is quite acceptable , but , there are
importants points about it that have occupied my mind, and the autors need to clarify
them further in a major revision version that I ask them
Therefore, the authors should revise the article by taking into consideration the following
comments.
 The English of the manuscript should be rigorously polished by the authors, as I have
found several deficiencies in this document, lack of punctuation and various spelling
and grammatical errors which must be corrected before being accepted.
 The key steps for writing the plan for a scientific contribution must be followed by
the authors, as I do not see these here.
The outline is the backbone of an article and largely determines its quality. The plan
is not just a point structure; it highlights the links between knowledge, research
hypotheses, methodology, results, rationale and conclusion. It requires developing a
logical structure with a common thread.
First, the author should clarify the message he wants to convey (this is usually
established at the start of the research). Following the message, he analyzes the
evidence and results. Are the research findings strong evidence to support our
claims? Do these statements lead us to the message to be conveyed?

 In the introduction, the author must absolutely identify:

- the problem;
-the objective of the article (to respond to the problem identified);
-• the research hypothesis.
 There are many research papers study the same problem which investigated in the
present paper. What is exactly the new point of this work?
The authors should focus to clarify this issue in the paper.
 The introduction section is far failed to express the aim of this study and has to be
reworked. It is crucial to answer the following questions:
                   a.     What is new in this study?
                   b.     What do you show in this study?
                   c.     How do those previous research works impact your work?

 Authors should explain clearly more about the novelty of their work in
introduction
 On page 4, in figure 1, the profile and the parabolic shape of the velocity must be
integrated into the flow diagram

1
 in section 2, all governing equations involved in solving the thermal problem
must be provided by the authors; the equation of continuity, moments and the
global energy equation developed by Bird, Stewart and Lightfoot
 The velocity field distribution equation (1) has been inserted without any
mathematical demonstration and should clarify how they were able to obtain this
expression
 The authors must also demonstrate the method of obtaining the energy equation
(2), I see that it inserted directly without any justification, this equation must be
drawn normally from the energy equation of Bird , Stewart , and Lightfoot and
simplify after using a lot of assumptions
 The authors must provide in the results section all the eigenvalues and
eigenfunctions relating to the resolution of the energy equation
 A simple flow chart is required to represent the steps-wise procedure followed
for carrying out the analysis.
 Key assumptions and their implications could have been elaborated
 All equations inserted into the document by the authors should be assigned
sources or bibliographic references which must be added to the reference section
at the end of manuscript for clarty of the idea to readers
 Details of the analytical and numerical procedure should be described in detail
.The authors have to explain what method was used and why.
 The authors should think over the real significance of their results and try to
rewrite this section to improve understanding of the conclusions
 The quality of the figures in this document needs to be improved; the figures need
to be larger in size so the data and labels can be clearly read.
 The introduction section is adequate but needs some language revision.
 The literature list should be expanded by adding extra work related to the subject.
The following article will be useful to the authors in their contribution in many ways:

- Analytical solution and and numerical simulation of the generalized Levèque

equation to predict the thermal boundary layer, Mathematics and Computers in
Simulation. 180 , pp.43–60 (2021)
- Numerical study of heat convective mass transfer in a fully developed laminar
flow with constant wall temperature circular tube. Case Studies in Thermal
Engineering  .6(9), 116-127 (2015) 
- Exact Graetz problem solution by using hypergeometric function, International
Journal of Heat and Technology, 2017, 35(2), pp 347-353 
- An analytical method for solving exact solutions of the convective heat transfer in
fully developed laminar flow through a circular tube, Heat Transfer Asian
Research, 2017, 46(8),pp 1342-1353
- Numerical simulation of thermally developing turbulent flow through a
cylindrical tube, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.102 (5-8), 2001–2012 (2019)

 The authors must provide a greater discussion of the results

 In 'Result and Discussion' authors have noted observations. But it is suggested
that to provide physical explanations of all obtained results which can enrich the
quality of the paper.
 The meaning of the conclusions is unclear, and there are grammatical errors. The
authors should think over the real significance of their results and try to rewrite
this section to improve understanding of the conclusions.

2
  In conclusions please provide a general comment on the obtained results. For
example: how can this work help in future researchers to contribute further
knowledge?

Altogether, the paper needs modification to be suitable for the standards required for
publication; therefore I recommend that it required to “Major revision”.
I look forward to receiving the revised version of this manuscript
My best regards