Time Evolution of the Modulus of Elasticity of Metakaolin-Based Geopolymer
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper could be improved before publication, please refer to the comment on the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
"Please see the attachment Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1).pdf."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
TITLE
It is obvious that the article is an experimental study. recommended to include effect of parameters on the modulus elasticity of metakaolin-based geopolymer
ABSTRACT
- Please include brief introduction and problem statement/research gap.
- The objective written is confusing. Please re-write.
- Methodology include is too brief. Please refine.
INTRODUCTION
- Please include the objective of the study.
- Review on the influence of the composition of the aggregates on the geopolymer's strength is not enough. Please include recent study on that.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
- Please include the flowchart of the study and flowchart for sample preparation.
- Please include the chemical composition for sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate.
- Include Table for mix proportion based on ratio.
- Why Figure 1 is important to be included in the manuscript? Otherwise, please remove.
- Please remove word such as WE, I, THEY, US in the manuscript.This is not lab report.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- Title only mentioned modulus of elasticity. But in the results, flexural and compressive strength also included. Please justify why?
- Table 3: Flexural tensile strength? It is flexural or tensile? Please correct.
- Figure 8: Compressive tension? what do you mean by tension? is it stress?
- Author confuse between tension and stress. Please justify why tension is used instead of stress?
- Figure 11, 13, 14 and 15: What author want to report from the graph with equation developed and r-square? Why polynomial line of quadratic function were generated instead of straight line? If to be fitted the dots, why not generate cubic or quartic functions?
- Figure 16: Where are the ruptures? Please label in the pictures.
CONCLUSION
- This part is not written correctly
- objective is not tally with the one mentioned in abstract and other sections.
- Please write in complete paragraph. Remove point form.
- Objective is not written in detail. Thus, conclusion written is not revolve around the objective. Please re-write.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2).pdf."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear,
The manuscript needs to be revised, considering it looks like a book chapter. In addition, the results must be compared with data from the literature, including showing the advantage and importance of the results.
> Abstract. Authors need to report the main findings and results. In addition, the importance of study and application;
> Introduction. The introduction should not be presented in topics such as 1.2;1.3;1.4. I recommend adapting only the introductory topic (1.0). In addition, the authors need to mention the work innovation, the literature gap, and the contribution of the research carried out.
> Topic 1.4 is not required, or authors should accommodate in the methodology;
> The manuscript looks more like a book chapter than a scientific article. Please accommodate topic 2 in the introduction;
> Experimental Procedure. The methodology is long, the authors could add part of the graphs and figures as supplementary material;
> The authors presented many data in the results and discussion. It is necessary to compare the data with the literature, including presenting advantages and disadvantages;
> Conclusions. The authors only presented the previously reported results. They should have shown the manuscript's importance for the environmental and construction sectors. What is the benefit of the results?
Author Response
"Please see the attachment Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 3).pdf."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The title time evolution is not reflected the content of the manuscript and far away from the interest of the reader. Did author created the word 'time evolution'? if not, then please review several works done on time evolution in geopolymer concrete.
The introduction is lacking especially on time evolution its definition and how it is important to be stressed in the manuscript.
Author used word limitation in abstract as an excuse which is not acceptable. Please shorten the objective and results, and include brief introduction, problem statement, methodology.
Use of word Us still in the manuscript. It was such a disappointment. although the author has changed the word to 'the author', it still not acceptable. Please change the sentences in passive form for example.
In results and discussion part, the results were discussed poorly. It is like a report. Please support the results by citing other's work. why the value is the lowest? For example, why compressive strength did not increase with aggregate compaction?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors satisfactorily answered the questions. Therefore, the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Reviewer comment: "The authors satisfactorily answered the questions. Therefore, the manuscript can be accepted for publication".
Thank you (again) for your valuable contribution.
There are no further comments to reply.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The revision is not at the reviewer's satisfactory.
