The present work aims at comparing mechanical properties due to addition of waste

aggregate concrete by using fine and coarse waste ceramic. The problem is tackled
experimentally using several mechanical testings including tensile, compressive and bending
tests. The work seems not provide some useful insights from a scientific standpoint and
seems to emphasize some well-known concepts. Everything considered, the work is lack of
scientific interests since it does not provide elements of novelty to the research field. So that,
the paper needs a thorough revision. I would not recommend this paper for publication,
unless a substantial and major revision is undertaken by the authors. In that case, the authors
must clearly describe the novelty, scientifically reinforce the proposed work, and provide
conclusions to the relevant result. Several points need to improved, such as:

1. The structure and grammar of the paper however are totally poor. As a simple example.
The use of coma and point is wrong. Proofreading by a native English-speaking person is
highly recommended.
2. There is lot of problems particularly in the presentation throughout the manuscript.
Besides there are many grammatical mistakes throughout the manuscript, particularly in
respect of use of singular and plural with the subject or verb.
3. The abstract given here starts without any background for the present work. Of course, it
contains brief details about experimental aspects and the obtained results. However this
abstract does not follow the norm of an abstract, which should state briefly:
1. The purpose of the study undertaken, what are you trying to solve
2. brief mention of experimental aspects (without using abbreviations)
3. highlights of the results numerically
4. Important conclusions based on the obtained results
5. Potential applications
Therefore, it is suggested that the Abstract to be modified as per the suggestions given
above.
4. Consider rewriting the Introduction in order to improve the presentation of the novelty of
the research work, framed within state of the art (by citing all pertinent references
dealing with the literature review). The introduction should be expanded and the most
important results obtained in the study should be mentioned. In the literature review, it is
expected that more striking explanations will be given about the motivation of this study.
5. Introduction: Lack of information about the aim of the research.
6. More detailed explanation of specimen manufactures and the experimental testing
procedure and standard. Figure of all testing specimen geometries should be added.
Testing machine and types, location of the testing, testing standard, testing setup and
procedure must be explained in detail.
7. It should be known to the authors when one publishes any scientific paper, the results
presented therein should be such they should be reproducible by any other person when
the experiment is repeated using the same materials. In the present paper, it would be
difficult for any other person to repeat the experiments because the chosen materials do
not have any pre-history, which is required for other researchers to carryout experiments
to check the possible reproducibility of the procedure adopted by these authors.
8. How you get the mechanical properties data in Tables 3 and 4. Or these data was
obtained from previous study? Please explain.
9. Check all missing unit and the all symbols must be in italic font style.
10. Figure 1 shows the grain size distribution curve for fine aggregates which are expressed
into three different colors. Please add the legend explaining what red, blue and green
graph.
11. The results of the study were not clearly explained where the results were obtained.
Please provide a more detailed explanation. Research discussion only describes graphs
and table. Please combine the result between white and red ceramic into one graph.
12. Throughout the manuscript, there are no comparison had been done with other published
journal. Therefore, please support your statements with other researcher’s work in the
section result and discussion. It should be discussed preferably comparing it with earlier
reported similar results by other researchers.
13. How many samples did for each experiment? Please do ANNOVA test and standard
deviation for all data collected and presented.
14. Conclusions given here are do not reflect what had been achieved including many
speculations. It may be remembered that this Section forms a summary of all the major
observations/ results obtained. Accordingly, here presentation should consist of the main
Results or the observations of the study in short sentences probably with bullet points.
This should stand alone or form a subsection of a Discussion or Results Section. Hence
better to rewrite this Section based on the comments given in the whole text.