Evaluation of Performance and Challenges of Use of Waste Materials in Pavement Construction: A Critical Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- Note on naming. The authors use the term "marginal material". This is correct, but a bit confusing. It seems that both reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP), processed plastic waste, blast furnace slag (BFS) and recycled glass are waste or recycled
- From the editorial side, the way of citing literature in the title of table 4 should be changed. The formatting of the entire references section should be adapted to the requirements of the journal, e.g. Author 1, A.B .; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.
Author Response
Please see the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper provided a review of using several marginal materials for asphalt concrete pavement applications. While the writing quality is good, I don't feel the content of this current version will make significant contributions in this field. A good review paper should highlight general conclusions by summarizing cutting edge information in this field. It should also identify research gaps and provide research motivation for readers. It is recommended that that authors cite more papers and identify the challenges and future research in each field. In addition, the title of this paper shall be changed. The current title is too broad. In fact, the authors just reviewed four materials and only focused on asphalt concrete.
Author Response
Please see the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors reasonably addressed my comments