Evaluating the long-term strength of GGBFS-blended cement across various water-to-binder and superplasticizer ratios under heating/cooling cycles

Bashdar Omer; Najmadeen Mohammed Saeed; Mahmood Hunar Dheyaaldin; Ahmed Salah Jamal; Rawaz Kurda

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0319923

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 19, 2024
19 May 2024 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Plos reviewes comments[1].docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319923.r001
24 Sep 2024 Decision Letter - Parthiban Kathirvel, Editor -->PONE-D-24-20165-->-->Evaluating the long-term strength of GGBFS-blended cement across various water-to-binder and superplasticizer ratio under heating/cooling cycles-->-->PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kurda, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 08 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:--> A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Parthiban Kathirvel Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript” Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition ). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories . -->Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** -->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.--> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** -->5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #1: Abstract 1. What are the method & conclusion? Experimental Program 1. There are results in Section 2 whereby it should be moved to Section 3. Result and Discussion 1. Section 3 is wee long & needs to be summarized as the current format is similar to thesis. Conclusion 1. Section 5 is wee long & needs to be summarized in full sentences without bullet points. References 1. Please follow the format of the references. 2. There are a number of incomplete particulars such as page number & etc in journals. Reviewer #2: Abstract: The first sentence of the abstract can be omitted Introduction: [1] The first paragraph of the introduction part is not necessary. The authors can reduce it or can replace with physicochemical characteristics of their parent material GGBFS. [2] "30 cyclic heating and cooling processes will be used in the study to test various temperatures in order to incorporate ongoing challenges present in the real world" Suggest some reference to this sentence [3] Rest part of the introduction is ok Experimental design [1] Section 2.1 Mention the manufacturing details (if any) of all the materials used [2] "Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) with a specific gravity of 2.90, the bulk density is 1000-1100 kg/m3 and the fineness is 360 more." state the source of this claim [3] Section 2.5: Authors must write one sentence about the sole purpose of this experimentation. What they wanted to achieve and how would the result help them with their objectives. [4] Superscripts are missing at some places such as kg/m3, try to correct those in the revised manuscript Results and discussions: [1] Section 3.1: "The maximum flowability was obtained with 0.48 w/b, 2% SP, and 45% GGBFS. It can be shown that higher GGBFS replacement content led to higher flowability in all mixes" Authors can compare this result with existing literature values [2] Fig. 12c: Explain why a quadratic regression is necessary, anyways it gives a poor correlation [3] Fig. 18: EDX/FTIR/XRD data would be more beneficial Sustainable development: [1] This section doesn't enhance the objective of the study. The authors can distribute parts of this section into the introduction, results and conclusion. [2] Sustainable development is a separate study and many stastical parameters are required to be analysed. The authors may think of doing a separate study. Overall comment: The authors must compare their results with the existing literature in form of a table. That will help the readers point out their current scenario. Conclusion: ****** -->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .--> Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319923.r002
Revision 1
12 Oct 2024 Author Response Reviewer #1: Reviewer comments 1- Abstract: The abstract should be improved and include clear statements about objectives, methodology and findings. Reply: The abstract has been altered according to the reviewer’s comment. 2. Relationship to Literature: The paper is bad structured and poorly recent documented, the amount of data is insufficient. It is necessary more recent and appropriate literature. Review more published studies to enhance the background the present study. Recent related references need to be incorporated. Introduction paragraph one needs proper references. Reply: as the reviewer requested, more recent references have been added to the introduction. 3. Methodology: The methods employed are robust and appropriate but more was needed in order to arrive a more information and results. Rebuild the section (method and experimental (RSM)- results and discussion). Reply: In order to make the introduction clearer, the first paragraph of section 2 was altered. 4. It is better to provide the images of the specimens prepared for the test. Reply: please, see Figure 3. The specimens were shown. 5. the paper only describes results and does not discuss findings with other studies. Reply: The authors agree with the reviewer’s comment and this step is an important parameter to be considered for any research. Nevertheless, after conducting an in-depth literature review, it was revealed that there is little to no data on the evaluation of GGBFS blended cement under different GGBFS replacement contents, w/b ratios, and SP dosages. Thus, we could not make a comparison between the data of this study and the others. 6 . A flowchart should be provided for the work process. The flow chart of the study has to be described in the steps. Reply: as shown in Figure 3 (Fig 1. A schematic of the experimental process.), In this study, we tried to focus on the work process instead the whole process. Instead of the flowchart, we described the work process of the work as a text (see, the first paragraph of section 2). 7. Why is it based only on the compressive strength (where are the other mechanical strengths)? Reply: IN this work, we studied 27 different mixes. These specimens were then removed after 24 hours and subjected to water curing for 28, 56, 90, and 365 days. Our objective to mainly focus on the compressive strength. Other tests can be added for future works such as a book. 8. improve the presentability of figures 12a to 12c (badly illustrated) Reply: Based on the reviewers’ comment, the figures have been changed and the trend line was added to understand the trend. Reviewer #2: The manuscript was crafted in a distinctive way in which the presented experimental results were validated using response surface methodology as well as Anova. Both statistical results reinforced and backed the findings of the author, as expected, that every experimental result should have either statistical, simulation, or machine learning model validation. The typing error in line 5 under the flowability of result and discussion heading should be corrected from "ADDINg" to "adding." Reply: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. As the reviewer requested, the word “ADDing” was corrected. Reviewer #3: Doesn’t meet the criteria for publication. Infect doesn’t have required elements of a research paper. A superficial lab test in terms of mixture test (Table 1), use of many undefined acronyms, , inadequate samples, … In terms of innovation doesn’t have any advantage over https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/498/1/012045, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666790823000095 Reply: Both papers have been considered in the study. Typically disorganized, 1. Long and vague title Reply: the tittle has been altered according to the 2. Poor English with massive flaws which must extensively be revised by a native expert Reply: The English has been checked again and we only found a minor 3. Not critically analyzed relevant works. Simply the gap can be seen in reference list. 4. Lack of any Discussion, solid comparison, limitation, practical and pitfall difficulties 8. Obvious inadequate sample for any generalizing, statistical analysis Reply: comments 4 and 8 in which they are similar. We decided to reply them jointly. The discussion section was 25 pages. This is way more than any usual paper. We don’t mind to discuss more but the limitation of the journal gaudiness may not allow that. 5. Outdated references with almost belong to more than two decades ago Reply: The list of the references has been updated 6. Unhighlighted research gaps with at least 3 years gaps!!!! WONDERED no work after 2021????? See the given example above. Reply: The relevant studies have been updated 7. Pretty long and unjustified conclusion. Reply: Due to the fact that we considered many references, mixes, the conclusion was needed to be long. 9. Many inappropriate citations. Reply: The list of the references has been updated 10. Ill-formatted and inconsistent reference list Reply: The list of the references has been updated Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Reviewers Comments and Response.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319923.r003
19 Nov 2024 Decision Letter - Parthiban Kathirvel, Editor -->PONE-D-24-20165R1-->-->Evaluating the long-term strength of GGBFS-blended cement across various water-to-binder and superplasticizer ratio under heating/cooling cycles-->-->PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kurda, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 03 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:--> A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. -->If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Parthiban Kathirvel Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions -->Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.--> Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** -->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. --> Reviewer #3: Yes ****** -->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? --> Reviewer #3: Yes ****** -->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.--> Reviewer #3: Yes ****** -->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.--> Reviewer #3: No ****** -->6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)--> Reviewer #3: Major Comments Title: The title is overly long and lacks clarity. Consider simplifying it while maintaining focus on the main research objectives. Introduction: While the introduction highlights the importance of GGBFS, the literature review needs better integration of recent studies. Several references are outdated and lack representation of the latest advancements post-2021. The research gap is vaguely defined. Strengthen the justification for the study by identifying more precise gaps in existing literature. Figures and Tables: Figures 12a-12c and others lack clarity and are poorly illustrated. Improve their resolution, consistency in formatting, and ensure they convey the intended data trends clearly. Tables contain significant data but need clearer captions. Ensure alignment with journal standards for table formatting. Language: The manuscript contains several grammatical errors and typographical issues. A professional language editing service is highly recommended to improve readability. Conclusion: The conclusions section is overly lengthy and repetitive. Focus on key takeaways and implications of the findings for the construction industry and sustainability. Minor Comments Some acronyms, such as SP and w/b, are not defined consistently throughout the manuscript. Ensure these are explained upon first usage. Highlight the practical implications of using GGBFS in different environmental and structural settings. The limitations of the study are not discussed adequately. Address sample size, generalizability, and experimental constraints. ****** -->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .--> Reviewer #3: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.--> https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319923.r004
Revision 2
6 Feb 2025 Author Response Reviewer #3: Major Comments Comment #1 Title: The title is overly long and lacks clarity. Consider simplifying it while maintaining focus on the main research objectives. Response: Thanks for your valuable comments. Kindly the title of research modified and reduced the length. Comment #2 Introduction: While the introduction highlights the importance of GGBFS, the literature review needs better integration of recent studies. Several references are outdated and lack representation of the latest advancements post-2021. Response: Thanks for your valuable comments. Numerous research studies regarding GGBSF replacement to cement performance have been conducted and explained in detail with the latest research studies. Comment #3 The research gap is vaguely defined. Strengthen the justification for the study by identifying more precise gaps in existing literature. Response: Thanks for your valuable comments, The research gaps have been kindly explained. The future perspective has been added and combined with the Research gap paragraph. Comment #4 Figures and Tables: Figures 12a-12c and others lack clarity and are poorly illustrated. Improve their resolution, consistency in formatting, and ensure they convey the intended data trends clearly. Tables contain significant data but need clearer captions. Ensure alignment with journal standards for table formatting. Response: Thanks for your valuable comments. Kindly, Figure 12 has been entirely modified and the resolution of the figures has improved Comment #5 Language: The manuscript contains several grammatical errors and typographical issues. A professional language editing service is highly recommended to improve readability. Response: Thanks for your valuable comments. All the grammatical errors corrected and entire manuscript checked for any typo issues and structure of sentences have been improved. Comment #6 Conclusion: The conclusions section is overly lengthy and repetitive. Focus on key takeaways and implications of the findings for the construction industry and sustainability. Response: Thanks for your valuable comments, the conclusion section has been entirely improved. And the key points of finding have been explained. Comment #7 Some acronyms, such as SP and w/b, are not defined consistently throughout the manuscript. Ensure these are explained upon first usage. Highlight the practical implications of using GGBFS in different environmental and structural settings. The limitations of the study are not discussed adequately. Address sample size, generalizability, and experimental constraints. Response: Thanks for your valuable comments, The acronyms have been explained for the first use of explanation from abstract and Introduction. And regarding GGBFS a numerous of explanation of GGBFS affect included performance on different environments have kindly explained. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response Reviewers Comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319923.r005
11 Feb 2025 Decision Letter - Parthiban Kathirvel, Editor Evaluating the long-term strength of GGBFS-blended cement across various water-to-binder and superplasticizer ratios under heating/cooling cycles PONE-D-24-20165R2 Dear Dr. Kurda, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Parthiban Kathirvel Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319923.r006
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Parthiban Kathirvel, Editor PONE-D-24-20165R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kurda, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Parthiban Kathirvel Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0319923.r007

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .