Study on Mechanical Properties and Microscopic Mechanisms of Alkali-Activated Coal Gangue Cementitious Materials

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please refer to the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language in the manuscript is inadequate for publication in an international scientific journal. The text contains numerous grammatical errors, incorrect verb tenses, missing articles, and awkward sentence constructions that significantly impede readability. Scientific terminology is often used inconsistently or inaccurately, and many passages are written in a procedural or colloquial style rather than in clear academic prose. In several sections, imprecise wording and non-standard expressions obscure the intended scientific meaning and contribute to conceptual ambiguity. Overall, the manuscript would require extensive language editing by a proficient English speaker with expertise in cement-based materials to meet the minimum standards of clarity and precision expected by the journal.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers, Thank you for the thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all comments and made substantial revisions to improve the quality of our work. We believe these revisions have substantially improved the quality and scientific rigor of our manuscript. We hope the revised version meets the standards of the journal and look forward to your favorable consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Study on mechanical properties and microscopic mechanism of alkali-activated coal gangue cementitious materials

This study investigates the mechanical properties and microstructural mechanisms of alkali-activated cementitious systems based on coal gangue, steel slag, and gasification slag. The topic is current and important in terms of sustainable building materials and high value-added utilization of industrial waste. The experimental design is generally systematic, and the orthogonal experimental design and the combined evaluation of compressive strength, flowability, and microstructure analyses are strengths of the study. However, some revisions are needed to improve the scientific clarity and presentation quality of the article. Detailed comments are provided below.

• While the literature review is comprehensive, the innovative aspects of this study should be emphasized more clearly in the introduction.
• In particular, the ways in which the coal gangue-steel slag-gasification slag triple system differs from existing studies should be more clearly explained.
• Line 75: The reference number in the phrase “Palmero et al. [26-27]” is incorrect. It should be “[26]”.
• Line 122: The full form of the chemical names “sodium hydroxide and anhydrous sodium sulfate” should be given the first time they appear. In subsequent sections, it is appropriate to give them in formula form. This should be corrected for the entire article (for example, as in Line 135).
• The image quality of the graph in Figures 4, 5, 6, and 7 is very poor. The values ​​and axis names in the graph are not clearly legible. Overall, the image quality of the figures throughout the article should be improved.
• Lines 224-225: The values ​​given as “2.439 megapascals, 3.286 megapascals, and 53.379 megapascals” should be replaced with “MPa”. Also, the value “53.379 megapascals” is very high. This needs to be checked.
• Three of the images in Figure 9 are labeled "(a)". This needs to be corrected to (a), (b), and (c). Similarly, the figure naming convention should be revised accordingly.
• The findings obtained within the scope of this study have been almost completely undiscussed in the literature. The discussion section of the article is very incomplete. It needs to be enriched by citing similar studies on this topic in the literature.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewers, Thank you for the thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all comments and made substantial revisions to improve the quality of our work. We believe these revisions have substantially improved the quality and scientific rigor of our manuscript. We hope the revised version meets the standards of the journal and look forward to your favorable consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript and addressed all remarks raised in the previous review. I appreciate the effort made to carefully respond to the comments and to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

After examining the revised version, I have not identified any further issues requiring correction. The manuscript now meets the standards and requirements of the journal and is suitable for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made all the requested corrections.