Effect of Different Anti-Stripping Agents on the Rheological Properties of Asphalt
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript deals with investigation of anti-spalling properties of asphalt using different compound of agents. Authors have used macro-rheological behavior as their scale for ranking the asphalt properties. In spite of valuable results from industrial point of view, this manuscript suffers from lack of novelty and fundamental investigation and it seems it’s not attractive for scientists. For instance, there are no information about chemical and physical properties of used agents which is very essential for scientist to have appropriate understanding of the process or there is no micro-rheological investigation that can be used to deduce the mechanism of the process. Also, there are many editorial errors in the text. So, I think, if the journal publishes works suitable for the industry, this paper could be accepted after needed correction for editorial errors, otherwise and due to lack of novelty it should be rejected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The content of the paper is interesting and can be considered as relevant to this journal. However, there are several issues that the authors need to address before any further consideration of this paper.
1_ Anti-stripping agents vs anti-spalling agents: Please be consistent within the text with the terminology used.
2_ Lines 15-22: This is only one sentence! Please revise and proofread the whole text.
3_ Lines 31-32: This sentence can be omitted. You have not introduced the acronyms at this stage.
4_ Last paragraph of the introduction: While the literature review is sufficient, the motivation is not clear and the objective statement is missing. Please clearly state what is the goal of your investigation.
5_ Lines 133-134: Improve the structure of the paper. This is section No. 2 and the title is missing.
6_ “Error! Reference source not found”: Fix the issue of referencing. Does it refer to literature references or to tables and figures? Please revise.
7_ Lines 459-462: Not fully convinced about what the authors have done here. Did they take data from a past research of their own or (recall the previous comment No. 6 and fix it to enable better interpretation).
8_ Table 7: Please explain the variable x. Also, what is the practical significance of these equations? Are they to be used elsewhere, or the purpose is to better explain the experimental results. Please elaborate.
9_ Many acronyms are used. Please consider adding an abbreviation list at the end of the document, before the references.
10_ In the conclusions, please state the practical significance and implications of your investigation (e.g., improve mix design? For what climatic conditions? Applicability for pavement reconstruction?, etc.)
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper was improved enough and the authors have responded my initial comments, but an additional effort is needed to ensure that appropriate answers have been included in the text as well. For example, I cannot find the exact place within the text where the revision in response to the 8th comment was made. Normally, in the re-review process the authors are expected to provide the exact lines where changes have been made. Please reconsider.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
