Internal Erosion Stabilization of Cohesionless Soil Using Lime
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It will be beneficial if they can publish the entire experimental data so other researchers can use in research similar to the one discussed in this paper. The results are specific and only applicable the tested soils. Overall Good paper.
Author Response
Dear Sir
The reviewer 1 report is attached
Regards
Dr. Mousa Attom
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
water-2384506
Title: " Lime Stabilization of Sandy Soil Against Internal Erosion of Soil Embankments"
The authors did a good job of studying the Lime Stabilization of Sandy Soil Against Internal Erosion of Soil Embankments; This scope needs such studies. However, in order to raise the quality of the manuscript to bring it to the required level in the journal “Water”, the reviewer recommends a deep processing of the comments (attached).
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Sir:
The reviewer 2 report is attached
Regards
Dr. Mousa Attom
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The work is interesting, has a clear degree of originality, and is appropriate for publication in the journal after performing careful revision. Nevertheless, it needs some further improvements. In general, there are still some occasional grammar errors throughout the manuscript, especially the article "the," "a," and "an" are missing in many places; please make spellchecking in addition to these minor issues. The reviewer has listed some specific comments that might help the authors further enhance the manuscript's quality.
- Specific Comments
· The abstract written by qualitative sentences. It is need to modify and rewrite based on the most important quantity results from this research. The abstract should be redesigned. You should avoid using acronyms in the abstract and insert the work's main conclusion.
· You have used many abbreviations in the text. From this perspective, an Index of Notations and Abbreviations would be beneficial for a better understanding of the proposed work. Furthermore, please check carefully if all the abbreviations and notations considered in work are explained for the first time when they are used, even if these are considered trivial by the authors. The paper should be accessible to a wide audience. Furthermore, it will make sense to include also the notations in this index.
- The objectives should be more explicitly stated.
- The introduction section needs to be enriched with some additional information. The following literature might be useful in this regard: << Investigation of seepage effect on river dike’s stability under steady state and transient conditions>>, << Full-Scale Interface Friction Testing of Geotextile-Based Flood Defence Structures>>, << Multidimensional aspects of floods: nature-based mitigation measures from basin to river reach scale>>you may consider other literature as well.
- What is the novelty of this work?
- It is better to improve your contributions which are not so clear to show the advantage of
your work.
· The novelty of this work must be clearly addressed and discussed in Introduction section.
- The methodology limitation should be mentioned.
Many equations are presented in the paper, and most look OK. However, please check carefully whether all equations are necessary and whether the quantities involved are properly explained. Also, some equations need references.
- Results
- The results interpretation is poor.
- Discussion
- Overall, the discussion part is weak. The Discussion should summarize the manuscript's main finding(s) in the context of broader scientific literature and address any study limitations or results that conflict with other published work.
- Conclusion
- Some future works should be added to your conclusion. Please elaborate on it a bit more.
The language needs some improvements. Please check with a professional language Editor.
Author Response
Dear Sir:
The reviewer 3 report is attached
Regards
Dr. Mousa Attom
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is well-revised and can be processed for the next stage of publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
Well done!
