Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

constrmater-3988806: Beyond Burnt Bricks: Reassessing Otukpo Soil for Sustainable Construction Applications 

General comments

The manuscript reports on various soil tests for the assessment of suitability for application in construction. The manuscript is not succinctly written and contains avoidable editorial errors. The errors are basic and avoidable, and thus the manuscript is bordering on rejection for lack of due diligence. A major revision is needed to make the manuscript readable. Table numbering is erratic, and a revision of table numbers is needed. The first two table for example both labelled “Table 1”.  This derails the entire table labelling system. Some text at the bottom of tables reads like table/figure captions.

Some of the issues of concern are listed in the specific comments. These are only some of the issues observed within the first 8 pages only, before navigation became impossible. An annotated copy is also attached.

 

Specific comments

• In Table 1 – Kg should be kg.
• In the first mention hydrolysis, it is not clear what this was for. Only later can the reader have enough information to speculate whether this was for the pH measurements. It is still not clear whether this is the case.
• The basis or justification for adopting 5wt% cement or 5wt% sodium hydroxide is not clear or provided.
• Section 2.3 (before Figure 3) refers to the larger 70.6 mm specimens. It is not clear which the smaller ones were.
• Figure 3 is not very helpful to the reader, and the authors may consider providing a better illustration or deleting the current one altogether.
• In Section 2.4, it is stated that samples were submerged in clean water for 24 hours to reach saturated surface-dry (SSD) conditions. How can this happen while submerged in water? It is only after blotting of the surface water they can reach this condition. Thus, the reporting is not precise.
• In Section 3.1, there is a statement to the effect that two sets of tests are shown in Table 1. It is not clear which table shows the tests.
• Some text is too close to the bottom of tables. This text is confusing, as to whether it is normal text or table captions. A clear gap should be placed between illustrations and normal of some sort.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See comments to authors

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for improving the paper:

*Title: The term "Beyond Burnt Bricks" is more rhetorical than technical; it may weaken scientific accuracy.

Consider including technical keywords such as pozzolanic potential, uncalcined bricks, SCM, to better reach the specialized audience.

*Abstract: There is a lack of clarity about which tests were actually performed and which were only mentioned as possible methods.

The structure could be more objective, better separating objective, methods, results, and conclusion.

Some sentences are long and could be condensed.

*Keywords: Make them more specific and index-oriented: include "lateritic soil", "XRF", "XRD", "SEM", "alkali activation", "kaolinite-rich soil", "natural pozzolan".

*Introduction: The introduction contextualizes well the problem of the cost and poor quality of sandcrete blocks in Nigeria and the history of the brick factory. However, the text is long and repetitive; it needs greater conciseness.

There are clear gaps in knowledge that justify the research.
The objective appears, but it is inserted in the middle of the text and is not presented in isolation or directly.
Insert explicit paragraph: "This study aims to evaluate..."
The topic is relevant, but the justification could better connect the demand for SCMs, environmental challenges of the cement industry, and the relevance of tropical lateritic clays.

*Method: The method is relatively well described, with many details of equipment, standards, and laboratories involved. However, some test parameters are not justified (5% NaOH and 5% cement content). There is no explanation of the criteria for choosing samples OT1–OT4 beyond physical availability.

The study mentions FTIR, SEM/EDS, XRD, TGA, but: FTIR was not performed, despite being listed; SEM and TGA were only done for OT3 and OT4; justify.

*Discussion of results: The discussion is descriptive and not analytical. There is no direct numerical comparison with international standard limits for SCMs (ASTM C618, EN 196).
There is no statistical treatment despite mentioning replicates.
Many data are repeated in textual form after appearing in tabulations.
Clear explanations for certain trends are lacking (e.g., total collapse of NaOH samples).
It could directly compare values ​​with those of African pozzolans, agricultural ash, calcined clays, etc.

*Conclusions: The conclusions do not clearly answer all the objectives of the study.
Quantitative conclusions are lacking (“At 28 days, OT4 with 5% cement achieved X times the minimum requirement…”).
They do not differentiate findings confirmed by data from future speculations.
They do not present practical engineering recommendations.
They do not clearly define the novel contribution.

*Writing, spelling, clarity:
Clear writing, but excessively long, with blocks of text that make reading difficult.
Excessive use of passive voice.
Some sentences are semantically redundant or overly explanatory.

There is a mix of styles (scientific and narrative).
Some inconsistencies in formatting (tables, numbering).
Some figures do not have adequate scale/captions.
Table numbering is duplicated or inconsistent in some parts.

*References: Many references are not scientific (local newspapers, blogs). Delete!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

constrmater-3988806-v2: Beyond Burnt Bricks: Reassessing Otukpo Soil for Sustainable Construction Applications

 

General comments

The manuscript has been massively revisited. There are large sections that have been newly introduced, adding context and clarity. Unfortunately, there are still some lingering issues, some raised in the initial submission, that appear to not have been considered by the authors. The overall layout could be improved.

Specific examples include:

1. The first two tables are still both labelled “Table 1”. This derails the entire table labelling system.
2. Some text at the bottom of tables/figures reads like table/figure captions. The text is too close to the bottom of tables/figures. This text is confusing, as to whether it is normal text or captions/footnotes. A clear gap should be placed between illustrations and normal text.
3. Table 2 could be improvement – for example reduction of font size and line spacing to make the large table more compact.
4. Inconsistency in using units. In Table 9, Kpa is used instead of kPa as in Figure 8.

In view of the above issues, some further minor revisions are need on layout, and proof-reading to ensure correctness of the finer details.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

See comments to authors

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf