Review Reports
- Jingjing Zhang1,
- Chao Liu1 and
- Jianning Wang2,3,*
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Gheorghe Nechifor Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Mohamed Elsafi
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript "Experimental study on flexural performance of precast prestressed concrete beams (PPCB) with fiber reinforcement" has an actual and interesting subject of the research field.
The flexural performance of fiber prestressed concrete beam (FPCB) were studied by using carbon fiber, aramid fiber and hybrid fiber.
Some suggestions and recommendations for up-grade the work are following:
- In section INTRODUCTION the references as interval number must explained (also some relevant references were lost)!
- The Reference section should be expanded.
- At Experimental part the materials must more characteristics and discussions (just or Table one image is not enough).
- Figure 2 need a little polish.
- Discussions and conclusions must be recorrelated so that only the obtained results are used
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
the manuscript is engaging and well-written, the reviewer suggests accepting it in its present form.
Author Response
The manuscript has been revised according to reviewers’ comments and suggestions. Effort of the referees and editors is greatly appreciated.
Reviewer 3 Report
There are some issues to consider.
1. In the abstract, it should contain the aim/objective, methodology/experiments, findings, etc. Please rewrite the abstract.
2. In the last paragraph of Introduction part, authors should justify their investigation. What can be done at the end of this study and what the results of this study provide for the literature?
3. The accuracy and reproducibility of the data should be presented more clearly
4. Figure 4 have low resolution.
5. Where is the comparison of other related works?
6. Conclusions is not just about summarizing the key results of the study, it should highlight the insights and the applicability of your findings/results for further work, where is the recommendations for scientific community and possible using fields? Where those materials will be candidate for using... which building? Medical Fields? Industrial Bases? Where?
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript can be accepted as the authors had addressed the reviewer comments.