Maximizing the Use of Out-of-Grade Hybrid Pine in Engineered Wood Products: Bond Performance, the Effect of Resin Streaking, Knots, and Pith
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I have thoroughly reviewed your manuscript and appreciate the effort put into constructing and writing the paper. However, after careful consideration, I must convey my concerns about a methodological error that, in my view, affects the entire work.
The literature (not cited in your paper) indicates that wood failure is governed by "weakest link" mechanisms, where the wood breaks in the presence of the weakest defect. In your study, samples were constructed with specific defects to be studied, which I believe distorts the actual scenario in a manner that makes the test essentially unrepeatable and not meaningful to be extended beyond the trials themselves.
With that in mind, I kindly suggest considering the following points:
1.Reference Previous Literature: Please include references that highlight the "weakest link" mechanisms in wood, providing appropriate context and justification for the criticism on the experimental method used.
2.Clarification of Intentions: It would be helpful to clarify whether you are attempting to model the worst-case scenarios or a more realistic situation. Understanding your goals can help in assessing whether the method is appropriate or not.
3.Discussion on Generalization: Please discuss explicitly the limitations of your research, including the extent to which your results may or may not be generalized beyond the specific experimental sample tested.
I believe that addressing these points will significantly enhance the validity and generalizability of your research. If these concerns are appropriately addressed, the paper will become a suitable for publication.
Furthermore, I must insist on the removal of sections 3.1.8 and 3.2.3, their respective images, and all related references throughout the article. My concern is that the linear regression lines clearly do not represent the experimental data, even in cases with higher
R2 values. Therefore, these sections do not appear to be representative of anything meaningful, as they only illustrate that the data cannot be represented by linear regression.
In some instances, a lower R2 value might be acceptable if the model is being used for exploratory purposes or if you are working with highly noisy or complex data. In other cases, a higher R2 value might be required if the model is being used for critical purposes such as quality control or forecasting in sensitive areas. It appears that we are dealing with the latter scenario in this case.
Author Response
Please see 'Response to Reviewer #1 Comments' section of the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, I think the study is interesting and very ambitious. What I want is mainly of an editorial nature.
Latin italics: Pinus elliotti var. elliottii x P. caribaea var. hondurensis
2 Materials and Methods: Messy presentation of the standards you used.
2.2.4: Reasoning that I perceive partly as background rather than material and method.
In general, the standards are written in a variety of ways. The correct way is to write according to the following example: EN 16351:2021 and ISO 16696-1
I would prefer results and discussion to be split up. The material is extensive and sometimes a little varied, for example sometimes the R2 value is stated, sometimes it is not. I think the material can be compressed and some information added to appendices, for example table 3.
5. Conclusions: The beginning is not a conclusion but rather a method. What comes later should be compressed. I perceive parts as results rather than conclusions.
Author Response
Please see 'Response to Reviewer #2 Comments' section of the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors corrected the paper as requested.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is better after the rework. However, it is still necessary for someone to do a proofreading. For example, in line 11 you have an abbreviation for the type of wood you used and in line 49 another abbreviation for the same type of wood. This is repeated in the text. Line 255: When you write mm2, the number must be raised (mm2). On line 258, the number 2 (mm) is missing. On line 300, a word is missing that explains what (4) means. Insert the word equation before (4) and it will be easier to read. In general, I think that a large part of the text in results and discussion should be able to be shortened. Much of the information can be obtained from the tables. There is a risk that the interesting results are lost in the large mass of text.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
