top of page

Build it up

You are kindly requested to revise your manuscript and submit the updated version to PFDM 2025 before 15-06-2025.

 

Below, you will find all relevant review comments from:

​

  • Scientific Committee,

  • Track Leaders,

  • The Editorial Team
     

Please consider these carefully in preparing your revised manuscript.Once your revisions are complete, you may submit the updated version using the submission link provided at the bottom of this page.We appreciate your contributions and look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Prediction of pavement structural remaining life based on distress data and pavement quality index

Reviewer's feedback:

"1. More recent literature should have been referred. 


2. The academic contribution of the manuscript need to be highlighted as the manuscript lacks novelty. 


3.The tables and the figures used in the manuscript need to be explained with reference to the results obtained." "Article's presentation can be improved, e.g., full name for ESAL is not provided where it appears for the 1st time. Appropriate referencing system should be used, e.g., Page 2: ""overlay mix. (Maji, and Chawla, 2016), (Nobakht, M., et al. (2016) and (Le, Lee, et al., (2017). "The implication on just relying on surface images should be discussed in the paper and the need to identify hotspots for further investigations. Specify the aim of paper in the main body of text (in addition to the abstract) before introducing the objectives. Source of data for Figure 1 is not clear. "

Editorial Decision for Conference Proceedings:

It is recommended that authors follow the template, as it already provides a clear structure. Suitable for conference publication.

Track Leader’s Comments (if any):

Please note that some of the track leader’s comments are intended as feedback for future improvements

  • Spelling mistake in the title "quality". This is sloppy

  • Nothing new in this paper. Development of a simple method to estimate the effective structural

capacity in terms of Structural Number (SN) at the network level, based solely on visual pavement

distress data. The simplicity is a good idea for quick assessment of structural capacity but adds little in terms of newness.

  • The abbreviation ESAL on page 1 should be in full the first time it is mentioned.

  • In-, and out-of-text citations are not correct

  • Very shallow literature review

  • Grammar mistakes e.g. "This study aimed at the followings"

  • It would have been useful to give examples of data e.g. for "These pavement sections were distributed over a wide range of condition, age, structure, construction materials and traffic level".

  • Format of the paper is sub-standard

  • The paper is longer than 4 pages

bottom of page