Experimental Study on Strength and Dry–Wet Cycle Characteristics of South China Coastal Soft Soil Solidified by Cement Collaborating Sand Particles
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Check the title of the vertical axis in Fig. (6), it seems wrong
Check the number of Fig. 3 (c) in page 10 and row 308
The conclusions include mention of fewer results that found in the manuscript
Unify the format style of writing the references
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article entitled, "Experimental study on strength and dry-wet cycle characteristics of South China coastal soft soil solidified by cement collaborating sand particles" deals with the influence of the soil particle on the strength of clay particles in the south China coastal area. The way the authors explained the concept was very clear but it needs modification to improve the quality of the article further.
1. The reason for choosing that particular coastal soil may be incorporated in the introduction.
2. The figure captions should be modified and should be self-explanatory. In a few cases, it leads to misunderstanding among the readers. Example Figure 8.
3. In the Conclusions part, the findings have some lacking, modify, and should not be present in the points.
Moderate English checking should be initiated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The work is actually quite clear in its intentions and showed a rather important sampling campaign. Despite this, the presentation of the results obtained is really badly structured. There is no real discussion section, just as there are no real considerations in the conclusion section. There is also very little clarity in the exposition and writing in English, which in many parts is almost incomprehensible due to the choice of very long periods with different cause-effect listings that can confuse readers. A remodelling of the paragraphs with the choice of commenting in the various paragraphs of the figures shown in the text is recommended.
An effort is required both in the enrichment of the introductory part and a strong improvement of the methodological section. It is necessary to improve the conclusions and comments on the analyses carried out and to include error bars in all the graphs shown (in the methods section it is mentioned that the samples were done in triplicate). In view of this, the trends described also need to be revised. In addition, it is necessary to improve the English of the whole text.
Unfortunately, due to all this, the current version is not publishable by any scientific journal.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Writing turns out to be highly penalising for work. Greater simplicity in syntactic construction is requested in order to facilitate the reader's comprehension.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I think the current version of the work is more impactful than what we saw in the first version. As mentioned even then, the work seems to be supported by numerous experiments, with results of definite interest. In general, I think it is necessary to improve the text in order to finish the refinement work that can make the work more palatable and appreciable. To this end, I would ask for one more change in the writing to make everything even more fluent (considering how much improvement has already been achieved in this new version). Finally, I further emphasise the graph shown in Figure 11, with attention to the units of measurement and the possibility of expressing the signals obtained as a function of ion concentration. Without this step, I cannot consider the presentation of that data satisfactory.
I ask for further effort (even a few words) about the conclusions that enhance the work by looking at the aspects that could be improved.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
I think it is necessary to improve the text in order to finish the refinement work that can make the work more palatable and appreciable. To this end, I would ask for one more change in the writing to make everything even more fluent (considering how much improvement has already been achieved in this new version).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
I thank the authors for their work. With the current improvements, the work has acquired great strength and is significantly improved both from the scientific and results communication point of view. I only point out that there is an error in the unit of measurement because the use of s is relative to the seconds, while the analysis of ion chromatography is expressed as S (unit of conductivity expressed in Siemens). Net of this necessary correction, I confirm that the work is, in the new version, of interest to the scientific community.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We're very sorry for this error, all wrong μs units in the manuscript have been changed to μS (see rows 427~428, Figures 11~12, and Table 5). Finally, we are very grateful to you for your sensitive, attentive, insightful, and conscientious review of the manuscript, and we express our sincere appreciation to you.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
