"The manuscript attempts to review the potential of incorporating Crumb Rubber (CR) and Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) into Porous Asphalt (PA), but it falls short in several key areas. While the topic is relevant, the paper lacks originality, offering a largely descriptive summary rather than a critical synthesis of the literature. A review should go beyond reiterating existing findings to provide new insights or perspectives, but this paper fails to do so. The literature review is incomplete and unbalanced, missing key references and relying on outdated sources. Several claims are made without proper citations, weakening the paper’s credibility. Additionally, the structure lacks logical flow, with redundant sections and a vague conclusion that fails to provide meaningful recommendations. The analysis remains superficial, with generalized claims that are not adequately supported by data or critical evaluation. Given these issues, the paper does not meet the standards for publication. To be considered, the authors would need to provide a more critical and comprehensive review, strengthen their citations, improve the structure, and ensure all claims are well-supported. Without these major revisions, the manuscript does not contribute significantly to the field and is not suitable for publication."

 1. The paper does not clarify which technologies or processes (e.g., wet vs. dry method for crumb rubber) are being discussed. This limits the practical relevance of the review.

2.As a review paper, the discussion is overly general and supported by a very limited number of references. The literature base is not comprehensive, and the citations are not formatted consistently. Notably, References 7 and 8 appear to be duplicates.

3. Moisture susceptibility and long-term aging are critical issues in porous asphalt, particularly when incorporating recycled materials. These aspects are mentioned but not sufficiently elaborated or supported with literature.

4. Although the paper highlights India and developing regions, it does not explore region-specific constraints such as material availability, economic feasibility, local standards, or climatic conditions, which are essential for real-world applicability.

5. Figure 1 is a good initiative, but its content does not align well with the corresponding text. The rationale behind method selection and how each step serves the research objectives is not clearly explained. The figure itself is confusing and needs refinement for clarity and consistency.