Evaluation of Cost-Effective Modified Binder Thin Chip and Cape Seal Surfacings on an Anionic Nano-Modified Emulsion (NME)-Stabilised Base Layer Using Accelerated Pavement Testing (APT)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors should rewrite the paper and take into account the next comments:
- In page 1, define what is MMLS.
- Keywords are excesively long.
- In page 2, lines 43-48 delete the paragraph "The template details the sections....of the journal or [email protected]"
- The introduction section is not well documented. A more complete state of the art should be included. The authors mainly include references on the use of nano modified emulsions in southern Africa. A quick search on the "google schoolar" allows you to see that there are numerous publications related to the subject under study worlwide.
- Page 3, lines 117 onwards: results should not be included in the introduction section.
- Page 3, line 145. Please define what is 93 per cent mod AASHTO. Not all the readers follow this standard.
- Page 6 lines 203-215. Please, summarize SASOBIT@ properties and benefits. This part of the paper looks like a advertising brochure!!!
- Is it possible to shorten sections 2.4, 2.5 and 3. Too long sections could be boring to the readers.
- In the conclusions section and in the article title, the authors indicate that is a "cost-effective" modified binder. But, how can they state this withoud performing an economic analysis?
Author Response
Replies incorporated in report
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper “applsci-1106840-Evaluation of cost-effective thin modified binder seals on Nano-Modified Emulsion (NME) stabilised base layers using Accelerated Pavement Testing (APT)” investigated on effect of New-age (Nano) Modified Emulsion (NME) stabilization in asphalt binder. The manuscript is not well organized; to improve the quality, the following recommendations can be incorporated.
Before all, the structure of this paper is similar to the technical report, not an academic paper, so authors should again rewrite all of parts base on journal paper style. Also, there are very figures in this report.
1.The authors should review the other more new investigation on their study way in the introduction part and finally note the novelty of article. The introduction part needs to develop.
- It is written about Figure 6 that " The successful application and evaluation of the selected binders could also contribute to the development of small contractors in developing economies with the emphasis on labour intensive construction." What is the reason?
- The methodology section is not well organized for the readers to understand the concept.
- The language used in the introduction can be more specific to the scope and aim of the study.
- The result Shear viscosity at BMN 10 and 20 are very close. Do these tests have reproducibility?
6- the quality of Figure 1,2,3,16, and 18 is very poor.
- Section “Discussion of results” is poorly written and limited. More details on quantities should be provided. In fact, the main body of your manuscript should be a result, not backgrounds and methodologies.
Author Response
Replies incorporated in report
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The comments of my first report have been addressed by the authors.
Author Response
According to this review report , all aspects have ben addressed sufficiently and no further review is required
Reviewer 2 Report
Some problems have not been resolved yet!
the structure of this paper is similar to the technical report, not an academic paper, so authors should again rewrite all of parts base on journal paper style. Also, there are very figures in this report.
The authors should review the other more new investigation on their study way in the introduction part and finally note the novelty of article. The introduction part needs to develop.
Some of figures should transfer to support information.
Author Response
Disagree with comments that have been addressed and are now opinion-based as discussed in the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors challenged the reviewers rather than correcting and noticing the reviewer's points. This manuscript is more like a report or a conference paper.
Author Response
The answers to Reviewer 2 remains the same - none of which he refuted. It is our view that most remarks are opiniated and none of our points were refuted by the reviewer. The points that Reviewer 2 raised were in line with most of what Reviewer 1 raised, which were all addressed to his satisfaction.
My detailed explanation of the approach adopted remains. Not all Journal articles are simplistic in nature and where new technologies and evaluation equipment are used the reader need to be given basic information. The removal of the remaining figures will negatively influenced the discussion of the results and flow of the article.
