Investigation on Adhesion Characteristics of Virgin-Aged Composite Binder and Binder-Aggregate System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I reviewed te following MS "Investigation on the Adhesion Characteristics of Virgin-aged 2 Composite Binder and Binder-aggregate System" for possible publication in COATINGS.

 

Is the work understandable, correct, and appropriate for the journal? YES

Are they clearly stated? YES

Is the purpose or goal of the work within the journal's scope? YES

Is the work correct and free of obvious errors? /YES

Are the methods and techniques employed appropriate? YES

Is the mathematics correct? YES

Is the work original and interesting? YES

Is the work original and does it contain new results that significantly advance the research field? YES

Have any parts of the paper already been published or considered for other publication? YES/NO

Are the results interesting and important to researchers in relevant fields of solid state chemistry ? YES

Is this paper likely to be cited in the future? YES

Is the paper scientifically sound and not misleading? YES

Does it provide sufficient information and in-depth discussion? YES

Is the presentation complete for a scientific paper? YES

Is there any critical information missing? NO

Is the presentation satisfactory? YES

Is the paper well written enough for evaluation of technical content? YES

Does the title reflect the contents of the paper? YES

Does the abstract describe the essential information in the work? YES

Does the introductory section adequately explain the framework and problems of the research? YES

Are the importance and usefulness of this research work clear? YES

Are sufficient references cited for providing a background to the research? YES

Is the length and format of the paper appropriate? YES

Is the conclusion logically supported by the obtained results? Yes

Are the figures and tables easily readable, correct and informative? YES

Is the English understandable? YES

Is the paper free of typographical and grammatical errors? YES

 

The authors did a commendable job  and succed to present a real scientific work. the MS presents a high and coherent scientific potential   based on the subject novelty, original methodology and a confirmed results.

 

minor minor remarks

 

-Abstract should be rewritten to highlight novelty and summarize results.

 

-Paper novelty needs improvement in the introduction section

 

- Authors should  avoid separated bullet in the conclusion subsection

 

- A separate discussion sub-section (with earlier similar work) can improve the results quality.

 

-Abreviations should be defined when mentionned for the first time.

 

-Figure 9b , the used color and fonts should be revised to clarify the artwork.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe that this is a very good article and recommend it for printing. The authors conducted very interesting experiments and meticulously discussed the results. Congratulations!

My only minor remark concerns the mention in the introduction of the influence of asphalt mixture on road noise. In the introduction, the authors write that recycled asphalt mixtures are designed to protect the environment - and rightly so - but maybe it is worth mentioning quiet surfaces and protection against noise, e.g.

• Materials (2020), 13(3), article number 675 
• Construction and Building Materials (2020), 263, article number 120626 
• Construction and Building Materials (2017), 135, pp. 104-111 
•  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx