Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Line 13 needs a more detailed description since this is your problem statement.

Lines 39 and 40 Is this a statement or a gap in knowledge. If the first, rewrite.

I find line 45 confusing.

Line 83 needs references.

It is confusing that the title indicates an LCC study of concrete pavements but then in line 85 you state that is not only about concrete pavements but is also about asphalt pavements. I would recommend reflecting this in your title.

Define the term user cost in section 1when first mentioned.

A methods section is missing although you seem to refer to this in section 2.

The results are well described and shown in graphs but there is no discussion and justification of the results. The authors should include in their discussion an extensive list of other authors to provide the necessary background to support the gap in knowledge.

As the paper stands at the moment it is incomplete and does not show the position of the study among others and its importance.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Thank you for review

 

Point 1

1) Line 13 needs a more detailed description since this is your problem statement.

 

Response 1

Thank you for your comment.

It has been corrected.

Supportive sentences had been added to the abstract and it is marked with red colour in abstract.

From line 14-19, 30-32.

 

Point 2

2) Lines 39 and 40 Is this a statement or a gap in knowledge. If the first, rewrite.

 

Response 2

Thank you for your comment.

Its gap in knowledge. And it is from Korean references.

One reference had been deleted from this sentence.

From line 45-47.

 

Point 3

3) I find line 45 confusing.

 

Response 3

Thank you for your comments.

It has been corrected.

The sentences was not clear and it had been marked in red colour.

From line 52-53.

Point 4

4) Line 83 needs references.

 

Response 4

Thank you for your comment.

It has been corrected.

references has been added  24,25

From line 99.

 

Point 5

5) It is confusing that the title indicates an LCC study of concrete pavements but then in line 85 you state that is not only about concrete pavements but is also about asphalt pavements. I would recommend reflecting this in your title.

 

Response 5

Thank you for your comment.

It has been corrected.

Titile of the article had been corrected.

 

Point 6

6) Define the term user cost in section 1when first mentioned.

 

Response 6

Thank you for your comment.

It has been added in section 3.1.

From line 127-133.

 

Point 7

7) A methods section is missing although you seem to refer to this in section 2.

 

Response 7

Thank you for your comment.

It has been added in section 2.

From line 111-125.

 

Point 8

8) The results are well described and shown in graphs but there is no discussion and justification of the results. The authors should include in their discussion an extensive list of other authors to provide the necessary background to support the gap in knowledge.

 

Response 8

Thank you for your comment.

It has been added and compared with the references 17 and 21.

From line 331-336.

 

Point 9

9) As the paper stands at the moment it is incomplete and does not show the position of the study among others and its importance.

 

Response 9

Thank you for your comment.

It has been compared with others references, also 21,22, and 23 references had been added.

Reviewer 2 Report

there are novelty in this paper.

aggregate must be used from national borrow

please use similar paper in research history section such as:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42947-019-0056-6

all of the price comparision must be along with mentioned years of study.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

there are novelty in this paper.

 

Thank you for review

 

Point 1

 

1) aggregate must be used from national borrow

 

Response 1

It is correct to use the country's money for the highway construction in Korea.

 

Point 2

2) please use similar paper in research history section such

as:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42947-019-0056-6

 

Response 2

Thank you for your comments.

Few [14-16, 22-25] references has been added.

 

Point 3

3) all of the price comparision must be along with mentioned years of study.

Response 3

Thank you for your comment.

It has been corrected for figure 9 and 10.

From line 306-325.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am happy with the changes applied and I thank the authors for taking the time to address them. For the term user cost you don't need to create a separate section, you just need to embed that within an existing section when you first refer to it.

Author Response

Point 1:

I am happy with the changes applied and I thank the authors for taking the time to address them. For the term user cost you don't need to create a separate section, you just need to embed that within an existing section when you first refer to it.

Response 1:

Thank you for your comments.

User cost had been embed with an existing section at method section (from line 116 to 122).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx