3D-Printable Materials Made with Industrial By-Products: Formulation, Fresh and Hardened Properties
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors need to rewrite the abstract. Highlight the scientific value added by your paper in your abstract. The abstract should clearly describe the core of the problem you are addressing, what you did, found, and recommend to the readers. It will help prospective readers of the abstract to decide if they wish to read the entire article. Currently, the abstract of the manuscript only shows the work done by the authors, not the purpose, importance, and novelty. Furthermore, details about the optimum 3D printable mixes and their practical application potential are missing from the abstract and conclusions.
The introduction section needs a lot of improvement in the form of more details of past relevant studies and the inclusion of the latest studies related to 3D printed concrete having waste materials. Authors need to include the latest studies regarding the subject.
Authors need to add the significance section of this study with reference to past studies to highlight the novelty of this study. What is the novelty of this work? please discuss with reference to similar past studies or reports.
The conclusion section needs to be rewritten by including the important results, optimum mixes, and regression model accuracy in points or bullet format.
Author Response
We would like to thank the referee for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please find our answer in the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present an interesting paper on 3D-printable materials.
Overall, the paper is well structured and well organized.
The subject studied presents some level of innovation with potential interest.
In my opinion, the paper presents conditions to be considered for publication.
Author Response
We have no comment. Thank you for your time in reviewing the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Please find the attached file for comment's details.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank the referee for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please find our answer in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The presented text entitled "the topic of the paper" introduces the subject of analyzing the properties of materials intended for 3d printing building structures. I have no objections to the experiment itself, where the authors assess the properties of cement mixtures with the addition of waste materials. However, I have significant reservations about the context of using these materials in the 3D printing technique because the authors do not analyze this issue in any significant way. Not only did they not run print tests, but they even conducted any comparative analysis where the developed materials could be compared with mixtures used in this technology. Therefore, my suggestion relates mainly to the need to supplement the concept of the work with research related to the main assumptions of the work, i.e., the use of the discussed materials in 3D printing.
Author Response
We would like to thank the referee for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please find our answer in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
In the latest version, the article gains in quality and may be approved for publication.
