Probabilistic Analysis of Slope against Uncertain Soil Parameters
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
many thanks to the editors for the invitation. I have read your work carefully.. Specific comments are as follows.
-The abstract should briefly describe the research background and policy implications.
- Research gaps should be well mentioned in the introduction. A good research gap can give the reader more insight.
-how can the governments benefit economically from your research ?
-why the method you have used is better than other methods ?how did you improve the method and the model ?
-Some of the most recent literature (last three years) should be considered and updated.
The following papers can be good examples to help you improve your paper:
-You G, Gan S, Guo H, Dagestani AA. Public Opinion Spread and Guidance Strategy under COVID-19: A SIS Model Analysis. Axioms. 2022; 11(6):296. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11060296 -A. A. Dagestani and L. Qing, "The Impact of Environmental Information Disclosure on Chinese Firms' Environmental and Economic Performance in the 21st Century: A Systematic Review," in IEEE Engineering Management Review, 2022, doi: 10.1109/EMR.2022.3210465.
regards, go ahead
Author Response
Author's Response to the Review Comments
Journal: Journal Sustainability
Manuscript: 1974192
Title of Paper: Probabilistic analysis of slope against uncertain soil parameters
Authors: Phitsanu Chuaywet, Saravut Jaritngam, Pattamad Panedpojaman , Nirut Konkong
We appreciate the time and efforts of the editor and referees in reviewing this manuscript. We have addressed all issues indicated in the review report and believed that the revised version can meet the journal publication requirements.
Comment 1: The abstract should briefly describe the research background and policy implications.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion, we will use it to modify the abstract section of the revised manuscript.
(Please find the red word in the abstract section of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 2: Research gaps should be well mentioned in the introduction. A good research gap can give the reader more insight.
Response 2: We followed the comment and modified the introduction section of the revised manuscript.
(Please find the red word in line 59-63 and line 68-72 of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 3: How can the governments benefit economically from your research ?
Response 3: In this research, we focus on the analytical methods for improving soil strength parameters and flood levels on embankment structures. The groundwater table level results were used for floodplain management and flood warning which are to save a life by allowing people, support, and emergency services time to prepare for flooding.
(Please find the red word in line 359-361of the conclusions section in the revised manuscript.)
Comment 4: (1) Why the method you have used is better than other methods ?
(2) How did you improve the method and the model?
Response 4: (1) The probabilistic slope analysis methodology based on the Monte Carlo simulation developed has the advantages of being simple and not requiring a comprehensive statistical and mathematical background. However, Monte Carlo simulation in slope analysis is defined as an approximate method that is random a value for each input variable from within the defined probability distributions. Monte Carlo simulation considers many simulated iterations, which will lead to both the convergence of the Monte Carlo method and the correct results.
(Please find the red word in line 143-148 of the revised manuscript.)
(2) Soil-Cement technique was selected for improving the quality of soil strength parameters which can reduce subsidence in soft soil layers and prevent soil degradation that is caused by the structure of soil grains with air and water.
(Please find the red word in line 254-256 of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 5: Some of the most recent literature (last three years) should be considered and updated.
Response 5: We followed the comment and improved the literature.
Comment 6: The following papers can be good examples to help you improve your paper:
-You G, Gan S, Guo H, Dagestani AA. Public Opinion Spread and Guidance Strategy under COVID-19: A SIS Model Analysis. Axioms. 2022; 11(6): 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11060296 -A. A. Dagestani and L. Qing, "The Impact of Environmental Information Disclosure on Chinese Firms' Environmental and Economic Performance in the 21st Century: A Systematic Review," in IEEE Engineering Management Review, 2022, doi: 10.1109/EMR.2022.3210465.
Response 6: We use an article recommended by reviewers to improve our articles.
Finally, the comments of reviewer # 1 are used to revise the 1974192 manuscripts.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The work shows good results related to the engineering-design problem, but in the sphere of science it is very weak, there are many more works missing on the topic that the authors deal with. In addition, a discussion chapter is missing, which should discuss the obtained results with the results of other authors. In a technical sense, the paper itself has a lot of errors. I recommend using one of the citation software and following the instructions in this journal (for citation, writing formulas, etc.). Comments on this paper are attached
The font for the title of the paper is not written well, please respect the form given for this journal
The abstract must be justified, please follow the form given in this journal.
Line 62: I think the Swedish Circle method should be added here.
Line 64: I would try changing the very beginning of the sentence you start: "Researchers [23,24]
Line 67: You have a lot of empty space on this page, you can see how to correct it so that your table is just below line 67 or start with the text
Line 81: In Figure 1, as well as in formula 1 found on line 78, you have a different label for the friction angle of the soil, please make it the same
Line 92: Figure 2, explain the image, that is, what software was used to obtain the image or apply only the model
Line 116: You have a blank space before quoting reference 19, Correct it
line 121. If you end with sentence (1), please write that it refers to formula 1, because this is not clearly stated for all readers of this paper
Line 129: what does this mark "(.)" mean
Line 144-145 I think it should be written like this (Eq. (7))
Line 169: I think you are missing the FS mark at the sentence "(= 0.985)".
Line 168 is not a well written software name as written on line 102, make it uniform
Line 169: You have a large space below Table 2
Why is the angle of internal friction angle in Soil-2 in Table 2? Please explain that
Line 186: The bracket font is not well written
This paper lacks a discussion chapter, which must describe the obtained results and refer to relevant references both from the author's domain, where the subject of research is from, and from the domain of different parts of the world. The authors should discuss the obtained results with the obtained results of other authors from different parts of the world.
Author Response
Author's Response to the Review Comments
Journal: Journal Sustainability
Manuscript: 1974192
Title of Paper: Probabilistic analysis of slope against uncertain soil parameters
Authors: Phitsanu Chuaywet, Saravut Jaritngam, Pattamad Panedpojaman , Nirut Konkong
We appreciate the time and efforts of the editor and referees in reviewing this manuscript. We have addressed all issues indicated in the review report and believed that the revised version can meet the journal publication requirements.
Response to Reviewer # 2 Comments
Comment 1: The font for the title of the paper is not written well, please respect the form given for this journal.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion, we used the form of Journal Sustainability to modify the revised manuscript.
Comment 2: The abstract must be justified, please follow the form given in this journal.
Response 2: We followed the comment and modified the abstract section of the revised manuscript.
(Please find the abstract section of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 3: Line 43: 1 think the Swedish Circle method should be added here.
Response 3: We followed the comment and added the Swedish Circle method to this Line 43.
(Please find the green word in the Line 43 of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 4: Line 47: 1 would try changing the very beginning of the sentence you start: "Researchers [23,24].
Response 4: We followed the comment and modified this sentence “Researchers [20, 21] classified a few slope stability methods which presented assumptions and limitations of these analysis methods and compared the Factors of Safety of the various methods” to “A few slope stability methods were classified by [10-11] which presented assumptions and limitations of these analysis methods and compared the Factors of Safety of the various methods
(Please find the green word in the Line 47-49 of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 5: Line 55: You have a lot of empty space on this page, you can see how to correct it so that your table is just below line 56 or start with the text
Response 5: We followed the comment and modified this space.
(Please find the green word in the Line 55 of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 6: Line 88: In Figure 1, as well as in formula 1 found on line 92, you have a different label for the friction angle of the soil, please make it the same
Response 6: We followed the comment and modified the label for the friction angle of the soil.
(Please find the green word in Figure 1, Equation (1), and Line 92 and line 95 of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 7: Line 115: Figure 2, explain the image, that is, what software was used to obtain the image or apply only the model
Response 7: We followed the comment and added the new sentence which links to the Rocscience Slide 2 software.
(Please find the green word in lines 113-114 of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 8: Line 135: You have a blank space before quoting reference 6, Correct it
Response 8: By typing error, we changed this sentence.
(Please find the green word in Line 135 of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 9: line 140. If you end with the sentence (1), please write that it refers to formula 1, because this is not clearly stated for all readers of this paper
Response 9: By typing an error, we deleted a (1).
Comment 10: Line 155: what does this mark "(.)" mean
Response 10: By typing the error, we changed “P(.)” to PF.
(Please find the green word in Line 155 of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 11: Line 170 I think it should be written like this (Eq. (7))
Response 11: We followed the comment and modified this error.
(Please find the green word in Line 170 of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 12: Line 199: I think you are missing the FS mark in the sentence "(= 0.985)".
Response 12: We intend to write it that way, but we will gladly edit it as requested.
(Please find the green word in Line 199 of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 13: Line 205 is not a well written software name as written on line 119, make it uniform Line
Response 13: We followed the comment and rewritten this citation.
(Please find the green word in Line 205 of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 14: Line 207: You have a large space below Table 3
Response 14: By typing error, we deleted a large space below Table 3.
(Please find the green word in Line 207 and Table 3 of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 15: You have a large space below Table 3 Why is the angle of internal friction angle in Soil-2 in Table 3? Please explain that.
Response 15: We followed the comment and modified the remark in Table 3 of the revised manuscript.
(Please find the green word in Table 3 of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 16: The bracket font is not well written
Response 16: We followed the comment and modified this error in Line 227 of the revised manuscript.
(Please find the green word in Line 227 of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 16: This paper lacks a discussion chapter, which must describe the obtained results and refer to relevant references both from the author's domain, where the subject of research is from, and from the domain of different parts of the world. The authors should discuss the obtained results with the obtained results of other authors from different parts of the world.
Response 16: We followed the comment and added the discussion section of the revised manuscript.
(Please find the green word in the discussion section of the revised manuscript.)
Finally, the comments of reviewer # 2 are used to revise the 1974192 manuscripts.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Despite providing all the needed information upon work, your manuscript lacks structure, making it hard to read. I would suggest refurbishing the different sections and naming them according to traditional standards.
For instance: The introduction can have a background (points 1 and 2) and objective (which is placed at the end of point 1). The methodology is diluted along the manuscript: it should be gathered in one section only and should provide sufficient information for readers to follow the work that has been done. It is also at this point that you raise your work hypothesis. Instead of the Results section, you can present your case study, following the methodology logic and even include a discussion of the results.
The conclusions must provide a concise and conclusive answer to the research question.
Please see the little comments made on the file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Author's Response to the Review Comments
Journal: Journal Sustainability
Manuscript: 1974192
Title of Paper: Probabilistic analysis of slope against uncertain soil parameters
Authors: Phitsanu Chuaywet, Saravut Jaritngam, Pattamad Panedpojaman , Nirut Konkong
We appreciate the time and efforts of the editor and referees in reviewing this manuscript. We have addressed all issues indicated in the review report and believed that the revised version can meet the journal publication requirements.
Response to Reviewer # 3 Comments
Comment 1: Despite providing all the needed information upon work, your manuscript lacks structure, making it hard to read. 1 would suggest refurbishing the different sections and naming them according to traditional standards.
Response 1: Thanks for your suggestion, we have adjusted as you suggested.
(Please find the blue word of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 2: For instance: The introduction can have a background (points 1 and 2) and objective (which is placed at the end of point 1). The methodology is diluted along the manuscript: it should be gathered in one section only and should provide sufficient information for readers to follow the work that has been done. It is also at this point that you raise your work hypothesis. Instead of the Results section, you can present your case study, following the methodology logic and even include a discussion of the results.
Response 2: We followed the comment and adjusted as you suggested.
(Please find the blue word of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 3: The conclusions must provide a concise and conclusive answer to the research question.
Response 3: We followed the comment and modified the conclusion section of the revised manuscript.
(Please find the blue word in the conclusions section of the revised manuscript.)
Comment 4: Please see the little comments made on the file.
Response 4: We have adjusted as you suggested.
(Please find the blue word in the revised manuscript.)
Finally, the comments of reviewer # 3 are used to revise the 1974192 manuscripts.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
good work , well done
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in present form
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors
Thank you for addressing my comments and suggestions.
I have nothing more to add.
