Review Reports
by
- Ali Mekhtiyev1,
- Yelena Neshina2,* and
- Lalita Kirichenko1,*
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Ozer Sevim
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, a prototype fiber-optic system is developed, which does not require electrical signals. This system enables the monitoring of the entire reinforced concrete structure, while also reducing the cost of monitoring. The research conducted here is both interesting and innovative. However, there are several areas that require attention and modification.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corrections highlighted changes in the re-submitted files. We have tried to take into account all comments and made changes to the article. We hope we were able to edit out all the errors and bugs. So, we have written a response to each comment of the changes made and explanatory notes.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn principle, this research is quite good and contains new innovations.
Articles need to be prepared following writing rules. After the materials and methods sections, a new sub-chapter is created, namely research results and discussion, so that the separation between sections in the article is clear.
In the discussion section, it needs to be supported by similar research to strengthen the novelty of this research. Add citations from relevant references.
At the end, add conclusions from this research. Conclusions are general and answer whether the research objectives were achieved or not.
Add relevant references that support this research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corrections highlighted changes in the re-submitted files. We have tried to take into account all comments and made changes to the article. So, we have written a response to each comment of the changes made and explanatory notes.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPaper ID: applsci-2670055
Type: Research Paper
Title: Developing an Intelligent Fiber-optic System for Monitoring Reinforced Concrete Foundation Structure Damage
This paper develops an Intelligent fiber-optic system for monitoring reinforced concrete foundation structure damage. The paper is fruitful and of interest to future readership and includes information on an interesting topic. Although the testing methods and compared results attained in the present study show the importance of the paper, the authors should address the following comments:
1. Please rewrite the abstract. The abstract should require a short introduction, a problem statement, and significant findings. Please give significant findings.
2. The topic is original, and it is relevant in the field.
3. Introduction: Please add citations in the first paragraph.
4. Although the article is fruitful, there are problems with the integrity of scientific writing.
5. Cracks in monolithic reinforced concrete structures of buildings [1-6]. The authors must not lump references together. Rather the contribution from each literature must be stated individually.
6. Please do not give commercial names of materials and test equipment.
7. Novelty in comparison to recent literature? Need to be emphasized in the Introduction section.
8. The experiments were carried out using a hydraulic press for testing building materials P-125. Which standards were used for tests? Please give details.
9. Please add a new section for results and discussion. Please give discussions with results.
10. Please discuss results with a comparison to recent literature.
11. Section 4 will be conclusions. Please rewrite the conclusion section. I strongly suggest that authors present their conclusions more concisely, avoiding repetition of the obvious and simple results.
12. Manuscript should be well organized.
13. References are appropriate.
14. Tables and figures are appropriate.
15. There should be space between number and unit.
16. Throughout the text, some typos must be eliminated.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corrections highlighted changes in the re-submitted files. We have tried to consider all comments and made changes to the article. We hope we were able to edit out all the errors and bugs. So, we have written a response to each comment about the changes made and explanatory notes
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsModerate editing of English language required before accept.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made the necessary changes. Therefore, the manuscript can be accepted.
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have improved the quality of manuscript