Application of a Probabilistic Method Based on Neutrosophic Number in Rock Slope Stability Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the manuscript titled "Application of a Probabilistic Method Based on Neutrosophic Number in Rock Slope Stability Assessment”, the authors discuss a case-study regarding the application of a probabilistic methodology of rock slope stability assessment based on the theory of neutrosophic number, that consider multiple levels of attributes.  The method was applied to a group of rock slopes located in Zhejiang province, China, and the calculated results were compared with the realities of in-situ survey. The arguments in the paper seem intuitively reasonable, though I am not expert of similar specific probabilistic methods such as the ones based on neutrosophic number. Anyway, in my opinion the manuscript in this current form cannot be published in the Journal and there are some issues to be worked out. Therefore, I retain that the manuscript needs a Major Revision.

Concerning the research as a whole, the following general considerations can be reported:

1)     The case of study appears very local and no comparisons are carried out with other similar experiences in other cases. This gap is particularly evident when the authors discuss about the instability slopes, the geomechanical properties of rock masses and the application of Beniawski and Romana methodologies. The Authors should make an effort to give a wider international scientific importance to their research. Thus, I suggest to relate their research to other similar studies that already treated similar topics.

2)     The geological description of the studied area is very poor and generic.

3)     Several corrections and suggestions in the figures 1 and 2 are shown in the attached Pdf file.

4)     In the manuscript, it is not described which engineering geological surveys and laboratory tests were performed for the rock mass characterization. The description of the geological and geomechanical aspects is very poor (see my notes in the attached Pdf file).

5)     Weathering and jointing state are the main causes of instability processes in a rock mass. These aspects are only mentioned, but an adequate description is missing. The Authors should discuss these aspects more indepth.

6)     The authors declare that the proposed probabilistic method reveals the importance of the influencing factors that trigger the instability of slopes (line 355), without specifying in which way.

The authors can find my detailed notes and suggestions in the attached Pdf document. I wish that my notes were useful to the authors to improve their manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

‍‍The Authors would like to thank the Editor and the Reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. We have addressed all of the comments in the new manuscript as presented in details in Word file.‍‍

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please find the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The Authors would like to thank the Editor and the Reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. We have addressed all of the comments in the new manuscript as presented in Word file in details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I attach a word file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The Authors would like to thank the Editor and the Reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. We have addressed all of the comments in the new manuscript as presented in Word file in details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I read the new version of the manuscript titled: “Application of a Probabilistic Method Based on Neutrosophic Number in Rock Slope Stability Assessment”, authors: Bo Li et al. I would like to thank the authors for the additional work applied to improve the manuscript and also for addressing the points raised in my initial review. The present version of the manuscript is significantly enhanced. Thus, I retain that the manuscript, in the present form, can be considered for publication in “Applied Sciences” Journal.

Author Response

The Authors would like to thank the Editor and the Reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions again. And we appreciate it that the reviewer confirm our modified version

Reviewer 3 Report

I attach my comment. in a word file. 

The quality of the manuscript has improved. I found some weaknesses: the figures and some specific additional points (see the comments). I recommend "minor revision". However, I think that if the authors will modify the figures (according to my suggestions) and other small comments, the manuscript will be ready to be published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The Authors would like to thank the Editor and the Reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions again. In the word version response, we only responded to the remaining questions raised by the reviewer. The comments upon which the reviewer commented “Ok” were not shown.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf