"This paper investigates the use of neem oil as a rejuvenator for aged bitumen and the effect of crumb rubber modification on rutting resistance. While the topic is relevant to sustainable pavement engineering, the manuscript has several critical shortcomings that limit its contribution and suitability for publication. A major concern is the lack of novelty and depth. The study presents experimental results but does not offer meaningful new insights beyond existing research on bio-based rejuvenators and crumb rubber modification. The methodology lacks sufficient justification regarding the selection of dosage levels, and there is no consideration of long-term performance evaluation. The absence of a comparative analysis with other rejuvenators further weakens the impact of the findings. The literature review is weak and lacks critical engagement with key studies. Several claims are presented without proper citation, and the discussion on neem oil’s rejuvenation effects is overly simplistic, failing to address potential drawbacks such as volatility, oxidative stability, and compatibility with various asphalt binders. There are also serious issues with the figures and data presentation. The quality of the figures is poor, making it difficult to interpret key results. The bar charts are missing error bars, preventing any assessment of variability or statistical significance. Furthermore, no statistical analysis has been performed, making it impossible to determine whether the observed differences in penetration, softening point, or rutting resistance are significant or merely due to random variation. Without proper statistical validation, the reliability of the results is questionable. The paper lacks a structured and critical discussion of its findings. The results are presented in a descriptive manner without meaningful interpretation, and figures and tables are included without thorough analysis. The conclusion merely restates the results without drawing deeper insights or addressing the broader implications for practical implementation. Given these fundamental weaknesses—ranging from poor literature engagement, lack of statistical analysis, weak discussion, and poor-quality figures—this paper does not meet the necessary standards for publication. A major revision is required to enhance the originality, improve methodological rigor, strengthen the discussion, and ensure proper data presentation before reconsideration."" 

1. Several figures (e.g., two labeled as Fig. 1) are not clearly referenced or formatted. Axis labels, units, and figure captions should be improved to enhance clarity and scientific readability.

 2. The experimental flow chart does not align well with the study's methodology. For example, FTIR is mentioned in the objectives but not reflected in the chart. Ensure consistency between visual content and text.

3. Are the selected tests (penetration, softening point, DSR) sufficient to evaluate the full rejuvenation effect of neem oil? Consider whether additional indicators (e.g., ductility, viscosity, or aging indices) are needed for a more robust assessment.

4. The paper does not specify the criteria for selecting optimal neem oil and crumb rubber dosages. Including this information would strengthen the methodological rigor.

5. The study references a few related works but lacks critical comparison with existing findings on bio-oil and crumb rubber modification. This limits the depth and originality of the conclusions. A more comprehensive literature discussion is recommended.