Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very interesting work, only some minor comments in the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting. But the title and abstract do not match the content. I recommend the change of the title and purpose of the paper. They reflect an objective not achieved with this article. Authors indicate that their result includes "low-carbon and environmentally-friendly baffles Based on Mangrove Bionics" but the data is not calculated or justified; the paper does not include impact analysis for validation. 

 

There are other incongruous phrases that make us understand another scope for the paper: for example: The current disaster prevention and mitigation engineering design fail to balance aesthetic ornamental and low-carbon environmental method. > Does this paper intend to make only aesthetic proposals? Why talk about disaster prevention if nothing is proposed about it afterwards?

Furthermore, in study case,  the design is mechanically (structurally) analyzed but ultimately the aesthetics are modified, making the FEM analysis invalid.

Other recommendations: 

1.- Review the citation style and references. There are mistakes (example: reference numbre 1)

2.- Review the template and style of the magazine. There are mistakes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The research deals with the use of non-traditional methods in protecting facilities from the influence of water currents and others in order to protect the environment from the use of traditional methods. These innovative methods contribute to reducing pollution and preserving the environment, and therefore they can be relied upon in coastal places or near water sources. A separate paragraph explaining this method and how to apply it in the interior areas far from water sources and put it in the research in a different color. Rewrite the abstract separately and more clearly in bullet points.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have modified some of the recommendations.

Even so, considering a system as "low carbon" requires an impact assessment and a validation analysis of results. Using "low carbon" materials (if it is demanding at a national leve)l, is not a scientific contribution or an advance in knowledge.

 

Sentences like: The artistic and aesthetic purchase of the overall style is reflectew the cultural traditions and the nation’s concentration on environment protection. It is a product reflecting  the principles of "balancing engineering design and aesthetics" and the "harmony between humans and nature." The artistics is not reflected in the complex structure and color but in the use of simple but unified curves and harmonious colors. The mangrove shape of  the main body companied by the dynamic design of a blooming flower brings it to the  real nature and allows the engineering to live in harmony with the environment.

... are not appropriate for a scientific article, if they are not refuted with studies. Conclusions about aesthetics must be drawn with foundation, from the field of philosophy. The final images do not reflect this.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have modified the paper.