A Critique on “Measurement of the Hygric Resistance of Concrete Blocks with Perfect Contact Interface: Influence of the Contact Area”

H. Janssen
{"title":"A Critique on “Measurement of the Hygric Resistance of Concrete Blocks with Perfect Contact Interface: Influence of the Contact Area”","authors":"H. Janssen","doi":"10.2174/1874149502115010330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n In March 2021, this journal published the article “Measurement of the hygric resistance of concrete blocks with perfect contact interface: influence of the contact area”. That article reports on a study on the impact of ‘perfect contact’ between concrete blocks on moisture absorption, with a focus on the impact of the sample cross-section.\n \n \n \n This critique aims at formulating several essential concerns on the hygric aspects of that article, thus expressing the discusser’s reservations on the reliability of the presented outcomes in particular and the published article in general.\n \n \n \n The data, as provided in the graphs of the critiqued article, are digitally extracted and further analysed by the discusser.\n \n \n \n That analysis results in serious concerns with regard to 1) the magnitude of the quantified post-interface flows, 2) the distinguishability of the moisture absorption in the monolithic and perfect contact samples, 3) the robustness of the knee-point identification algorithm, 4) the dependability of the capillary absorption measurements, and 5) the consistency of the capillary absorption processing. These are finally translated into 8 concrete questions to be addressed by the authors of the critiqued article in order to placate these doubts and establish the reliability of their work.\n \n \n \n This critique formulates appreciable apprehension with respect to an earlier publication in the journal and invites its authors to respond to that via answering the 8 concrete questions. If not satisfactory, then the critiqued article’s findings cannot be considered reliable, and the journal should reconsider its prior publication.\n","PeriodicalId":350575,"journal":{"name":"The Open Civil Engineering Journal","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Open Civil Engineering Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874149502115010330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In March 2021, this journal published the article “Measurement of the hygric resistance of concrete blocks with perfect contact interface: influence of the contact area”. That article reports on a study on the impact of ‘perfect contact’ between concrete blocks on moisture absorption, with a focus on the impact of the sample cross-section. This critique aims at formulating several essential concerns on the hygric aspects of that article, thus expressing the discusser’s reservations on the reliability of the presented outcomes in particular and the published article in general. The data, as provided in the graphs of the critiqued article, are digitally extracted and further analysed by the discusser. That analysis results in serious concerns with regard to 1) the magnitude of the quantified post-interface flows, 2) the distinguishability of the moisture absorption in the monolithic and perfect contact samples, 3) the robustness of the knee-point identification algorithm, 4) the dependability of the capillary absorption measurements, and 5) the consistency of the capillary absorption processing. These are finally translated into 8 concrete questions to be addressed by the authors of the critiqued article in order to placate these doubts and establish the reliability of their work. This critique formulates appreciable apprehension with respect to an earlier publication in the journal and invites its authors to respond to that via answering the 8 concrete questions. If not satisfactory, then the critiqued article’s findings cannot be considered reliable, and the journal should reconsider its prior publication.
评《完美接触界面混凝土砌块水阻的测量:接触面积的影响》
该期刊于2021年3月发表了《具有完美接触界面的混凝土砌块的水阻力测量:接触面积的影响》一文。这篇文章报道了一项关于混凝土块体之间“完美接触”对吸湿性影响的研究,重点研究了试样截面的影响。这一批评的目的是对该条的卫生方面提出若干基本关切,从而表达讨论者对所提出的结果的可靠性以及对所发表的文章的可靠性的保留意见。所提供的数据,在批评文章的图表,是数字提取和进一步分析的讨论者。该分析结果在以下方面引起了严重的关注:1)定量后界面流动的大小,2)整体和完美接触样品中吸湿性的区别,3)膝点识别算法的鲁棒性,4)毛细吸收测量的可靠性,以及5)毛细吸收处理的一致性。这些最终被翻译成8个具体的问题,由批评文章的作者来解决,以安抚这些疑虑,并建立他们工作的可靠性。这篇评论对该杂志早期发表的一篇文章提出了明显的担忧,并邀请作者通过回答8个具体问题来回应。如果不令人满意,那么被批评文章的发现就不能被认为是可靠的,杂志应该重新考虑其先前的发表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信