Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: water-3942773

Manuscript Title: Permeable Pavements: An Integrative Review of Technical and Environmental Contributions to Sustainable Cities

The following corrections are recorded:

1. It is recommended to prepare a Table that includes a comparison between the concrete pavement and asphalt pavement in terms of environmental impact.
2. Correct the citation numbers in Tables 1 and 2 (place them between square brackets).
3. The conclusion should be expanded and must be improved by adding numbers (percentage of changes, %)
4. The number of the reviewed references is relatively few. It is better to add more related references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have presented a review article on permeable pavements. Considering the overall structure of the study, it is well-designed and provides up-to-date information in the field. However, there are several points that require clarification. My specific comments and questions regarding the manuscript are listed below:

1. The non-repeating abbreviation “LCA” in the abstract should be removed.
2. Why does Figure 1 not begin with the initial 811 studies? Figure 1 should be redesigned to clearly represent the entire selection process.
3. Although the authors state that the number of publications has increased over the past decade, there has been a noticeable decline in publication numbers since 2017. This trend should be briefly discussed.
4. What does the third column in Table 2 represent? Either the column headings are missing or misaligned.
5. The most significant shortcoming of the manuscript is the lack of detailed information on the current barriers and opportunities within the scope of the reviewed research. What are the identified research gaps and implementation gaps? What are the emerging areas that researchers in this field should focus on? These issues should be discussed in detail under dedicated sub-sections within the discussion section. The statements provided in the conclusion are rather superficial and include commonly known limitations. A more in-depth discussion is needed.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further questions. The authors have adequately addressed my comments. Congratulations on a strong contribution.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors adequately addressed the concerns and comments raised by the Reviewer.