Review Report

Manuscript Information
Manuscript ID: JSCET_S_000022
STRUCTURE INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT AND REPAIR WORK FOR REAL CASE
Manuscript
STUDY: CORRIDOR 3RD FLOOR PSYCHIATRIC BUILDING PUSAT PERUBATAN
Title:
UNIVERSITI MALAYA, KUALA LUMPUR.

Evaluation Report
Originality (Manuscript contains
new and significant information
– clear justification in the
introduction / problem
statement)
Literature (Adequacy of
relevant literature in the domain
and cite an appropriate range of
literature sources)
The manuscript presents an original case study conducted by the
author and their team. However, the introduction would benefit from
enhancements, particularly in terms of providing a more robust
literature review or presenting similar case studies to bolster the
problem statement.
The literature review provided in the manuscript is somewhat limited
and insufficient to adequately cover the breadth of the study's domain.
It would greatly benefit from a more thorough and in-depth discussion
of the relevant literature to establish a stronger foundation for the
research. Additionally, there appears to be a discrepancy between the
number of citations in the manuscript and the listed references. The
authors are encouraged to carefully verify and ensure alignment
between the citations and the List of References. Furthermore, to
enhance the scholarly rigor and credibility of the manuscript, it is
recommended that the authors include a minimum of 15 references.
This will not only enrich the literature review but also contribute to
elevating the overall quality and standard of the research.

Line 26: “According to Forensic College, …” is it a report ? if Yes,

please revise to “According to report published by Forensic
College…”

The style of citation and list of reference provided is not tally,

numbering system should be used in citation. (Author please check
with editor of the journal).

The methodology outlined in the manuscript predominantly focuses

on the selection of Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) techniques to be
employed in the research. However, it is essential for the methodology
Methodology (Methodological section to encompass not only the choice of NDT methods but also
framework is well designed, and details regarding the location of the inspected structure, its
methods adopted appropriate) configuration, and the procedures for conducting the tests. While
Table 1 provides information on the functions of each test instrument,
it would greatly enhance the manuscript's quality if it also included
the specific locations of the inspected areas. This addition would
 provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the
testing procedures and contribute to the overall clarity and
effectiveness of the methodology section. The indicator used in the
testing shall be included.

Line 59-62: Repeated statement.

Caption of Table 1 shall be at the top of the table, author suggest to

recheck the format of the journal.
The presentation of results for the rebound hammer test and
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) in the manuscript is commendable.
The findings reveal various sections of the tested area exhibiting weak
and poor concrete conditions. However, the justifications provided
rely heavily on the authors' predictions and assumptions rather than on
concrete scientific investigation. It is recommended that the
discussion be supported by actual empirical evidence or rigorous
scientific analysis to ensure the conclusions drawn accurately reflect
the underlying causes. Similarly, the discussion of the half-cell
potential test predominantly focuses on causal explanations rather
Results & Discussion (Data
than presenting explicit results from the testing. Aligning the
analysed, presented and
discussed appropriately) discussion approach with that of the Rebound Hammer test would
enhance clarity and substantiation of the findings. Regarding the Glass
Reinforced Plastic (GRP) testing, it is advisable to relocate the
discussion of the GRP's function to the methodology section for
improved organizational clarity and coherence.

Line 79-102: Suggest to migrate to Methodology.

Line 104: Use proper sub-title
Line 118: Wrong format of writing caption for Table. (verify with
format of journal)

The conclusion section serves as a concise summary of the research

Conclusions (Conclusions are
drawn adequately and tied
together with other elements of
the paper)
Implications (The manuscript
clearly identify the implications
(theoretical, practical)
and its findings; however, it appears that the author primarily
emphasizes the advantages of Non-Destructive Testing (NDT)
techniques without adequately summarizing the specific findings and
discussions presented in the manuscript. It is essential for the
conclusion to encapsulate the key results and insights derived from the
study, providing readers with a clear understanding of the implications
and conclusions drawn from the research findings.
The manuscript provides useful insights into how Non-Destructive
Testing (NDT) methods can be used to assess concrete structures.
While it effectively shows how techniques like the rebound hammer
and UPV work, there's room to make the research stronger. By
making sure discussions are based on solid evidence rather than
guesses, the manuscript could become even more valuable. Also,
presenting test results more clearly and explaining methods better
would help readers understand the findings. By improving in these
areas, the manuscript could be a great resource for anyone interested
in evaluating and maintaining concrete structures.
Communication (The Need to conduct proofread (certified proofreader).
manuscript is in appropriate
form (language, sentence
structure, grammar, acronyms
etc.)

Recommendation
Kindly mark with a ■

□ Accept As It Is
□ Requires Minor Revision
□ Requires Major Revision
□ Reject

Return Date: 4 March 2024