Sustainable Strategies for Concrete Infrastructure Preservation: A Comprehensive Review and Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper aims to review the sustainable strategies for concrete infrastructure preservation. The content is interesting and in the scope of this journal. However, the following comments/improvements are suggested for author consideration.

 

1. The section “2 Materials” is confused to readers. Most of the information in this section is about review method, data collection etc. So it is suggested that to change the title “materials” to “Review methodology and ethics”. Suggest adding a short sub-section in this section to discuss research ethics issues.
2. As a review paper, following the methodology section, the current section 3 may be split into different sections to review available references in different areas. Such as “sustainable materials for infrastructures” (this section will include many of you sub-sections in your current Section 3), “retrofitting of existing infrastructures”, “challenges in sustainable infrastructures”….., subsections in current section 3 may be rearranged into different sections based on their contents.
3. The paragraph at the beginning of your current section 3 (before section 3.1) may be in the new methodology section, as it is related to how you collected data for this review paper.
4. The current section 4 discussion shows your understanding, analysis and future conceive to concrete infrastructures. So, according the overall contents in this manuscript, I would suggest to change “A comprehensive review” in the paper title to be “review and prospective”.

Author Response

Sustainable Strategies for Concrete Infrastructure Preservation: A Comprehensive Review and Perspective

Manuscript ID: infrastructures-3582899

Response to Reviewer 1

The author sincerely appreciates the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing my manuscript (Manuscript ID: infrastructures-3582899), “Sustainable Strategies for Concrete Infrastructure Preservation: A Comprehensive Review and Perspective”. Your thoughtful feedback has been instrumental in refining our work, and we are grateful for your insightful comments and suggestions. Below, we provide detailed responses to each point:

1. Methods Section Refinement: The section previously titled “Methods” has been revised to “Review Methodology and Ethics” to more accurately reflect its content. In addition, a new subsection (Section 2.4: Research Ethics) has been added to address ethical considerations related to literature selection, transparency, and academic integrity.
2. Restructure of Section 3: The original Section 3 has been reorganized to improve thematic clarity and alignment with the structure typically expected in state-of-the-art reviews. Each major topic now constitutes its own body section (Sections 4–7), focusing respectively on sustainable materials, retrofitting strategies, performance improvements, and implementation challenges. Section titles have been revised accordingly to clearly communicate the scope of each.
3. First Paragraph of Section 3: The introductory paragraph summarizing article distribution and review scope has been reframed and repositioned. The section has been retitled “3. Overview of Analyzed Literature” to better reflect its function as a continuation of the review methodology and to satisfy the request for improved structural clarity.
4. Title Change: The manuscript title has been updated to: “Sustainable Strategies for Concrete Infrastructure Preservation: A Review and Perspective” to better reflect the forward-looking elements of the discussion and align with the reviewer’s recommendation.

Once again, we greatly appreciate your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your insights have significantly improved the clarity and impact of our manuscript. We welcome any further suggestions and look forward to your perspective on the revised version.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the infrastructure preservation of concrete was discussed. The subject of this manuscript is interesting and valuable. However, there are some problems appeared in the manuscript. In order to improve the manuscript, these questions should be solved before the acceptance.

1. In line 125, the author mentioned that various combinations were used to consider literature screening. Please describe the specific combination method.
2. Lines 138-139. Same as suggestion 1, the classification criteria proposed should be clearly described. For example, what is the range of the influencing factor, how to determine the comprehensiveness of the research results, and so on.
3. Sections 3.1 and 3.3 both have similar content introductions, such as fly ash, fiber reinforced concrete, etc. Section 3.1 has already introduced the impact of these materials on the performance of concrete, while Section 3.3 repeats it, which is unreasonable. Meanwhile, the content of section 3.3 is inconsistent with the title, and the author should design a title that is more in line with the content.
4. The title of section 3.4.4 mentions cultural barriers, but the content below the title does not reflect cultural barriers.
5. There is no fundamental difference in the content of Sections 4.2 and 4.3. For example, the promotion and application of materials mentioned in section 4.3 are inevitably related to researchers, industry professionals, and policy makers mentioned in section 4.2. The author needs to reconsider the setting and classification of this part of the content.
6. In the conclusion, the author should discuss the issue of cost. For any material that needs to be applied in engineering, as long as it can reduce costs (on the basis of reliable performance), construction companies will inevitably promote its application.

Author Response

Sustainable Strategies for Concrete Infrastructure Preservation: A Comprehensive Review and Perspective

Manuscript ID: infrastructures-3582899

Response to Reviewer 2

The author sincerely appreciates the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing my manuscript (Manuscript ID: infrastructures-3582899), Sustainable Strategies for Concrete Infrastructure Preservation: A Comprehensive Review and Perspective. Your thoughtful feedback has been instrumental in refining our work, and we are grateful for your insightful comments and suggestions. Below, we provide detailed responses to each point:

1. Combination Method: A detailed explanation of the specific Boolean logic and keyword combinations used during the literature search has been incorporated into the same paragraph. This addition clarifies the systematic approach employed to capture both narrow and broad research themes relevant to sustainable concrete infrastructure.
2. Classification Criteria Description: A new paragraph was added at the end of Section 2.2 describing the classification methodology in greater depth. This includes quantifiable thresholds for comprehensiveness, the range of influencing factors (e.g., SCM replacement levels, curing conditions), and prioritization criteria for empirical versus computational studies.
3. Content in Old Section 3.1: Section 6.1 (formerly 3.3) was retitled to reflect its distinct focus on performance outcomes. Additionally, a clarifying introductory statement was added to delineate this section from earlier discussions on material composition, thereby eliminating redundancy and ensuring consistency with the section's intended scope.
4. Section 3.4.4 Refeinment: The title was revised to “Social Barriers to Adoption” to more accurately reflect the content presented. This change ensures alignment between the section title and the scope of the discussion.
5. Sections 4.2 and 4.3: Section 8.3 was substantially rewritten to focus explicitly on practice-oriented implementation considerations. It now emphasizes the needs of engineers, contractors, and field professionals, clearly distinguishing it from Section 8.2, which discusses systemic research and policy-level gaps.
6. Cost Discussion in Conclusion: A paragraph was added at the end of the conclusion to address the economic viability of sustainable strategies. This addition highlights the importance of lifecycle cost savings and performance reliability as key drivers for industry adoption.

Once again, we greatly appreciate your thoughtful and constructive feedback. Your insights have significantly improved the clarity and impact of our manuscript. We welcome any further suggestions and look forward to your perspective on the revised version.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript well addressed my comments to the first manuscript. I recommend to accept for publication.