Evaluating the Strength and Durability of Eco-Friendly Stabilized Soil Bricks Incorporating Wood Chips

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       The article is well-written and structured, providing a solid foundation for the research. However, a distinct numerical evaluation for the same structure would greatly enhance the clarity and depth of the study.

2.       While the article is informative, the experimental setup lacks clarity. A more detailed description of the setup and possibly a schematic representation would assist readers in understanding the methodology better.

3.       The figures presented in the article need improvement. For example, Figure 3 is not adequately explained and does not make sense to the reader. It is essential to ensure that figures are technically sound and effectively convey the research findings.

4.       The methodology is discussed in fragments throughout the article, making it challenging to follow. Consider creating a flowchart or a more cohesive section that outlines the fabrication process and parameters to enhance readability and comprehension.

5.       The article should provide a more comprehensive comparison of the research findings with recent studies in the field. A detailed explanation of how the current study fits into the existing body of knowledge would strengthen the article's contribution.

6.       The validation part of the study could benefit from additional information and context. Enriching this section with relevant data and analysis would enhance the overall quality of the research.

7.       Overall, the article shows promise, but addressing the issues mentioned, such as improving figure quality, providing a clear numerical evaluation, and enhancing the presentation of the methodology and parameters, would significantly enhance its value and accessibility to readers.

Minor

Author Response

See attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written paper containing interesting results which merit publication. For the benefit of the reader, however, a number of points need clarifying, and certain statements require further justification. There are given

In the introduction, you need to connect the state of the art to your paper goals.

USCS OR U.S.C.S? Pick one, and Please check line#124 or Table 4

Please check Table 4-Results (mg/L)-Please delete the mg/L

Please specify the unit of the Plasticity Index.

Please revise line#168; for example, In this study, a non-destructive dynamic elastic test was utilized to measure.... Please avoid the term first-person.

line# 269-Figure 7? or Fig. 7? Please maintain this throughout the paper.

line#402-please check permeability value.

Please revise the conclusion in paragraphs. I think conclusions are not just about summarizing the key results of the study, it should highlight the insights and the applicability of your findings/results for further work. Please make it more concise and show only the high-impact outcomes.

Author Response

See the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf