Next Article in Journal
Robust Resource Allocation and Trajectory Planning of UAV-Aided Mobile Edge Computing in Post-Disaster Areas
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluating the Service Performance of Heavy Axle Load Ballasted Railway by Using Numerical Simulation Method
Previous Article in Journal
Terahertz Imaging for Formalin Fixed Malignant Liver Tumors Using Two-Band Beamline at the Accelerator Facility of Nihon University
Previous Article in Special Issue
Identification of Track Stability Model Parameters Based on Numerical Experiments
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Applicability Study on Modified Argillaceous Slate as Subgrade Filling for High-Speed Railway

Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(4), 2227; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12042227
by Ping Hu 1, Wei Guo 2,* and Limin Wei 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(4), 2227; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12042227
Submission received: 30 December 2021 / Revised: 30 January 2022 / Accepted: 8 February 2022 / Published: 21 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Design of Track System and Railway Vehicle Dynamics Analysis)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents the results of experiments and numerical analyzes of argillaceous slate modification as track bed filling for high-speed railways in the form of: cement and quicklime additives.

The work is interesting, but quite chaotic and not in line with the MDPI standard. The work contains many editorial errors, e.g.:

  • line 10, 11, 31, ... - missing spaces before abbreviations
  • line 33, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46, 55, ... - missing spaces before refs in []
  • line 72 - wrong formatting of new section
  • line 73 - wrong formatting of subsection
  • line 120-126  - wrong font (smaller)
  • line 130-134 - wrong font size
  • figure 2 - to small figure - font used in fig should be similar as in the main text
  •  line 230 - fig7 instead of Figure 7
  • and many more, mainly wrong format, missing spaces and text repetition.

The introduction is short and general, a broader view of the subject is, in my opinion, necessary.

Chapter 3 should be divided into two - 3) Results - with a short presentation of the results and 4) Discussion - with a longer discussion of the results obtained.

Chapters 4 and 5 should be integrated into new chapters 3-Results and 4_Discussion as subsections.

Conclusions in the form of sub-points are not a good habit. The last chapter should contain a short summary of the research carried out.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer comments as attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been revised according to the reviewers' recommendations, although the reordering of subsections is not in line with my suggestions. However, I believe it can be accepted for publication

Back to TopTop