Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study reviewed various outlier detection methods for geotechnical data. As the authors stated, collecting and analyzing laboratory data is crucial in characterizing the mechanical properties of geomaterials. The study reviews and categorizes applicable outlier detection methods for geomechanical engineering. This study is helpful in the design, stability analysis, and construction of geotechnical engineering. It can be published after the authors answer the following comments.

1. Sections 2& 3 are too simple and may be presented in Section 4.

2. The applications or examples should be provided and explained for each method.

3. Some suggestions should be provided to select the outlier detection method.

4. One data group should be used to compare the various methods to show the disadvantages and merits.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an excellent and complex work.  Very useful for the people in the geotechnical field.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

On behalf of all authors, I would like to appreciate you for evaluating our recent research. I am really flattered to see your comment on our review article. I hope that our study can provide informative insights to the practitioners and researchers in the field of geotechnical engineering.

Best,

Behzad

Reviewer 3 Report

 

Dear authors,

I found the manuscript interesting and I will be very pleased to see it published in its final form in the Geotechnics journal.

My comments are mainly concern with the way work is presented and less with the contents. Nevertheless, I would like to see them considered in a final version of the manuscript.

#1 First table (nomenclature)

I find that the initial table (nomenclature) very adequate to be presented in a scientific paper. It is necessary to confirm with editors if it can be accepted like this. An alternative would be acronyms or symbols to appear as a legend in tables and in brackets in the main text.

#2 Titles of figures and tables

The legends (captions) of figures and tables should be revised. I suggest a detailed revision of all the captions, these must be the most complete as possible, because figures should be legible without the need to see the main text. For instance, most figure and table captions do not refer the study context.

#3 font type and size within figures and tables

Please, take into account the use of the same fonts and the standardization of their size in the different figures and tables and even within the same figures (for example, in figure 4).

#4 Pictures

It would be important to have photographs of the rock samples studied and described in the manuscript (lines 411-415).

#5 “Study”, instead of “Paper”

Please, replace "paper" by "study" in line 95, and remove "paper" from line 512 (keep only "In this, review, we…”).

 

Regards

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors answered the comments well.The study is interesting.