Self-Compacting Earth-Based Composites: Mixture Design and Multi-Performance Characterisation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is discussing the usage of earth-based compositions in SCC. Generally speaking, the paper is good and interesting for readers, however, the overall presentation can be improved. The abstract, research significance, research objectives, and conclusions should be direct to the point as there are too long and needed to be rewritten. More references can be added to the introduction like "Two-Year Non-Destructive Evaluation of Eco-Efficient Concrete at Ambient Temperature and after Freeze-Thaw Cycles" that published in sustainability IMDP journal. Also presenting the figures in tables is not a good idea. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study is based on original approches with exhibits promising results. 

Author Response

The Authors thank the Reviewer for taking the time and effort to review the manuscript and the positive comments that supported his recommendation for publication.   All remarks and suggestions provided by the Reviewer were addressed by the authors and definitely contributed to the manuscript improvement.   The modifications to the original manuscript are highlighted in yellow colour in the "Highlighted Revised Manuscript".

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a good paper. It should be accepted after attending to the following comments:

1. The are some syntax and grammatical errors in the current paper. For instance, "........Therefore, engineers and architects face challenges days,....", there is a need to further improve on the general structure of the paper
2. There is a need to explain the meaning of century XX
3. There is a need to provide citations for some assertions. For example, "....The predicted increase in world population (by 2030 it is expected to increase by more than 2000 million people)"
4. There is a need to understand that all construction professionals including quantity surveyors, construction managers, town planners, land surveyors, etc. are involved and needed to promote sustainability. Therefore, statements like ".....Therefore, engineers and architects face challenges days, particularly on the use of more sustainable building materials and Construction techniques...." should be reworked
5. Mathematical formula and scientific names should be checked and be written appropriately. For instance, CO2 should be written as CO₂
6. In stead of combining review under introduction, there is a need to have a separate section on literature review to review the basic items and key elements of the study. Research significance and objective are part of the main introduction of a paper
7. There is a need to explain the repeatability of the adopted method. If the test is to be carried out in another place with different atmospheric conditions and other details, is there a probability of obtaining the same result?
8. The conclusion is in order except that the section lacks limitation of the study, areas for further study and policy recommendations. There is a need to state the limitation of the study which may be due to the region, adopted method, etc and explain areas for further study. Mores so, there should be policy recommendations and stakeholders that will benefit from the study should be identified while stating how the results of the study will benefit them.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx