Tweet Review
Content of review 1, reviewed on December 23, 2020
I read the paper with interest. To improve the quality of the paper the following points have to be considered:
1. Use the standard format for the abstract section.
2. Clearly state the difference of this work with other similar works focusing on the novel parts of the paper in the introduction section.
3. Show the procedure of the study in a flowchart.
4. Page 3, line 59; I am wondering if “eq. 2” is true?
5. Try to compare the results at different rates (figures 3-6) in one graph at least for one pressure.
6. There are lots of numbers in the text mainly in result section. Enhance the results section by gathering the results in tables to better present them and make it easier for the readers to compare the results. Now, tracking the results is really difficult. Try to present them briefly in some tables with briefly stated texts.
7. Explain the reasons of difference between the trends of curves at 0.1 MPa in Figures 6 to 10.
Source
© 2020 the Reviewer.
Content of review 2, reviewed on February 10, 2021
The authors have responded all my concerns and in my opinion the manuscript is now can be published.
Source
© 2021 the Reviewer.
References
Olalekan, A., Lei, G., Zeeshan, T., Mohamed, M., Dhafer, A. S., Abdullah, S., Ammar, A., Esmail, M. 2022. Kinetic and thermodynamic modelling of thermal decomposition of bitumen under high pressure enhanced with simulated annealing and artificial intelligence. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering.
