All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The paper has been accepted by all reviewers and can be accepted.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Sebastian Ventura, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Dear authors,
Your revised paper has been reviewed by one reviewer who asked for revisions of the paper. Please revise the paper according to comments by the reviewer, mark all changes in new version of the paper, and provide a cover letter with replies to them point to point.
No comment
No comment.
No comment.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting the corrected version of the paper. I am satisfied with most of the responses to my comments. I also noticed some mistakes. I noticed that there is still an error in Figure 2. The numbers are still in percentages. It should be a number of values.
Dear authors,
Your paper has been reviewed by experts who recommended major revisions. Please revise the paper according to suggestions and provide a reply point to point to each comment.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**Language Note:** The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Alternatively, you should make your own arrangements to improve the language quality and provide details in your response letter. – PeerJ Staff
No comment.
No comment.
No comment.
Dear Authors,
Thank you for submitting your work to this journal! By reviewing the work, I saw that you have a lot of technical errors, such as missing spaces between words, missing parentheses or excess punctuation marks. The theme of the work is really contemporary and can be of great benefit to civil engineers in terms of saving money and time.
Recommendations and comments for the correction of the scientific paper are as follows:
Comment 1:
Line 9- “a viable option” A period is missing at the end of the sentence.
Comment 2:
Throughout the text, there are many places where the space is missing. I noticed the following places where the space between words is missing:
1. Line 10- “Material and Methods:A set”
2. Line 10- “aredesigned”
3. Line 41- “fibers.Concrete”
4. Line 66- “durability.This”
5. Line 88- “models [15].Structural”
6. Line 97- “[17, 18].It’s also difficult”
7. Line 123- “[29-32].The”
8. Line 191- “modulus.The reported”
9. Line 217- “system [82].Long-span”
Check the entire text and check if there are any more errors of this type.
Comment 3:
Line 38- Are high performance materials really cheaper as you state in your paper?
“and cheaper costs than typical construction products.”
Comment 4:
Line 76- Should the sentence start with “ML”?
“ML According to the learning experience, supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning are all examples of machine learning “
This sentence is a little confusing because of the beginning, so look at it again.
Comment 5:
Line 80- “strength forecasts (regression problems) (regression problems).” It is repeated twice (regression problems). I guess one is redundant
Comment 6:
Table 1 and Figure 1- Please explain the data in more detail in the text. I'm especially thinking about the process of eliminating papers and how you came from 116 papers to the final 42 papers that you considered. What specific conditions were considered in addition to those listed in the table?
Comment 7:
Table 2- In Table 2, reference 39, the material is Journal and properties: Concrete. This seems quite illogical to me. Please check this information and see if it affects the rest of the analysis.
Comment 8:
Line 201- “In figure 2. We can see that 55%” It should be written here “In Figure 2. we can see that 55%”
Comment 9:
Figure 2- Why are the percentages in the text different from those shown on the pie chart? (24,45 and 29,55 in Figure 2. vs 45% and 55% mentioned in text).
Comment 10:
Line 213 – What does “SHM” represent?
All abbreviations should be written in the full name when they appear for the first time in the text. The same applies to the abbreviation SFC (Line 348- “SFC”). Please review the entire paper and explain all abbreviations that are not written in the full title the first time they are mentioned.
Comment 11:
Line 222- “(typically based on finite element analysis (FEA)”. Another parenthesis is missing. It should say“(typically based on finite element analysis (FEA)).”.
Comment 12:
Line 287- “hidden layer.. It is important “.You have one extra period at the end of the sentence.
Comment 13:
Could you improve the visibility and quality of figures 1, 2, 3? I think it is possible to do that.
Comment 14:
Please unify the marking of references. After reference 94, the space on the left side was changed.
Generally, the manuscript presents literature that is relevant to the advancement of the field of study and practice, i.e., concrete as a construction material. The authors have endeavored to present the review in a systematic way, however, additional work is required in checking spelling, grammar, and general formatting.
Specific comments are given in the manuscript, as examples. The authors should ensure that other sections of the manuscript are checked against the given comments. See attachment.
It is also highly recommended that the authors focus on the specific application with regard to the presented manuscript/review since, for example, structural analysis and concrete mix design are undertaken independently, and not all concrete mixes are for structural applications.
Specific comments are given in the manuscript, as examples. The authors should ensure that other sections of the manuscript are checked against the given comments. See attachment.
No comment
Refer to attachment
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.