Mechanical Properties Test and Enhancement Mechanism of Lime Soil Modified by High Content Soda Residue for Road Use
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic looks interesting but I have a number of major concerns about this paper, the main ones are:
1. Overall, the presentation of the manuscript is poor and doesn’t fulfill the required standards
2. The abstract should be clear and concise. Please rewrite
3. Abstract should include key results and conclusion and highlight the novelty of the current study.
4. The authors should critically discuss the latest research being done on same material in the introduction part. Most of the references are old.
5. Novelty of current work and Research gaps and methodology of current research work should be appropriately addressed in the introduction.
6. Furthermore, the objectives of the current study is not clear. At least last paragraph shall have the clear objectives for this study.
7. In SEM analysis, the author is claiming the formation of CSH and NASH phases. The authors need to provide proper evidences (EDS) for their claims regarding formation of CHS and NASH phases
8. The author should mention the main conclusion of current study
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Studies contemplating the use of waste in road infrastructure are always beneficial. The following comments were listed to improve the work's quality. Please, also provide an English grammar text revision.
Section 1- Introduction. This section also comprises the literature review, which is usual. However, it is necessary to include a table comparing the results of different modifiers incorporated into the soils (from other literature) - type, amount, UCS, and density.
In Section 2, the Soda Residue (SR) characteristics were presented. On the other hand, the soil characteristics are missing (source, classification). Also, translate the titles of Figs. 1 (a, b) and 2 (a, b).
Consider changing the title of section 3 to Methodology. Figure 3 has to be explained in more detail, specifying the test standards and the experiment phases. Line 120, change "soil =" to equal.
Item 4.1.2 - It is necessary for the quality improvement of Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. Fig. 4: A2 - please comment on the result (1.89). Fig. 5 - please show the R2 and comment about that.
Item 4.2.1 – Describe Fig. 6.
As you asserted, solid waste Soda Residue (SR) represents an environmental problem. In this way, how to assure that the SR will not contaminate the ambient (incorporated into the soil), for instance, by lixiviation? Are the authors performed some tests about this?
In the Conclusions, please comment and include the study's contribution to the practice, limitations and possible implications.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author,
Please consider the following remarks.
1. Line 21. It is unclear what is the criterium of optimization.
2. Line 50. This article does not need to divide scientists into domestic and foreign. Such a division might be reasonable in the political sciences, for example, but not in engineering.
3. Line 50. Specify exact years. It's not clear what "long" means.
4. Line 69. Avoid specifying a time period based on the time the article was written (for example, "recently", "modern", "new", "nowadays"). Indicate it absolutely (for example, "in 2000-2022"). If this word is introductory, then skip it.
5. Line 72. The country name is not specified.
6. Line 82. Standards and regulatory documents should be described so a foreign language reader can understand them. References to local standards are incomprehensible to readers without detailed explanations. It is recommended to refer not to normative documents but to the underlying scientific results.
7. The review part of the INTRODUCTION section is not like a search for a ready-made solution to the problem facing the author. The absence of such a solution (the scientific gap) in publications has not been formulated. Consequently, the author's research is not properly motivated. The research object, the goal, and the study's objectives are not clearly defined at the end of the INTRODUCTION section.
8. Line 116. It is unclear what is the criterium of optimization.
9. Line 137. It should be explained how formula (1) and the coefficients included in it were obtained.
10. Line 264. The country to which the listed geographical names belong should be indicated.
11. Table 6 and section 5. In the above calculation, there are no costs for equipment, labor, etc.
12. The article looks local. Extending the results and conclusions to other objects would be necessary, making it more attractive to readers from other countries.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
NA
