Improvement of the Plantation Success in a Crib Wall in a Mediterranean Hydro-Meteorological Risks Scenario—Practical Results

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments:

This manuscript requires a rewriting. The storyline is not clear and continuous enough. The background needs more emphasize. Important findings of the study are also not emphasized enough.

Paragraphs need restructuring. Several sentences are lost or stand by themselves, hence not creating a paragraph (for instance, L145-150, L181-191).

Many typography and misused of punctuation. Please consider using Oxfords comma.

English needs to be proofread.

Abstract

Abstract is not giving the whole idea of the research.

Method part is not clear enough and important findings of this research are not presented.

Introduction

The introduction is heavily focused on the history and development of crib wall rather than comparing the mechanisms difference of the crib wall types. Benefits and disadvantages or other characteristics difference of crib wall types can be summarized in a table or figure for easier understanding.

The background on why this research was conducted is not clear and strong enough.

The knowledge gaps and the uniqueness of this research need more emphasize.

Material and methods

L95-100: in addition to listing the locations, a figure will be easier to understand. Particularly for international readers who are not familiar with the country/area.

L106-113: figures or photos will be very helpful to understand the experimental setting.

L131-131: a figure is necessary to understand these locations.

L145-152: this part required a clearer explanation. The purpose of improvement of HDCL for the resistance to hydro-meteorological hazards can be stated first, then followed by what the authors collected or conducted to obtain the data.

L185-186: this sentence is lost. What does it explains?

Results:

In general, figure, table, or graph is necessary to better explain the results and to demonstrate evidences, thus reader can easily understand and believe the manuscript.

L216: please elaborate more on the evidence that a good resistance of vegetated fiber roll was observed. The sentences following L216 are not strong evidences. Insert table, graph, or figure to support your evidences.

L217: no mention of gabion in any of previous parts, but it suddenly appears here.

Discussion

L218: “looks like” is a very weak statement, hence the authors are not confident with their results.

L278-280: is this information essential for your study?

This manuscript has no conclusion.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, please check the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor

I have the following major concerns. In this step, my decision is major revision.

 Abstract

Unfortunately, I cant see any results in this part…

 Introduction

Literature review is so poor.

What is innovative of the current study?

Please remove word “we” from all of text.

Study Sites and experimental design

Please change to study area.

This is so important to add coordinate system of the studied areas.

Any description about climate features of the study area?

This is important to add a flowchart about the study area.

I think you have to write methodology again. Please don’t use A, B, C, …

Results

Results and discussion are written well.

I cant see any conclusion?

References

So poor. This isn’t acceptable for an international journal.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, please check the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The work is good and well structured. It is easily readable and clearly explained. The result of the research is immediately transferable to the technological and technical field, moreover the authors illustrate well the benefits of the product compared to traditionally used materials and techniques. 
I suggest a flow chart of the methodology to make the steps of the research more obvious. 
Secondary recommendations include:
- Revise the references to the bibliography cited in the text.
- revise the numbering of the paragraphs
- line 76: correct the references

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, please check the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Since bioengineering techniques are often neglected when improving slope stability, this research topic has a lot of potential. A scientific study does not appear to be the focus of the manuscript, or maybe it's simply the way the authors presented their findings. For the paper to sound scientifically accurate, all sections require substantial improvement. The abstract is unclear and poorly written. The introduction section focuses on how crib walls are constructed and nothing else. No other bioengineering methods are mentioned nor are they discussed. Several subject-specific objectives (aims) are presented in subsections of the methodology, but little information is provided on the approach, site investigation methods, nor decision-making process in choosing the study site. There is no graphical presentation of the results. Providing a table or graph showing the analysis would make understanding the results much easier. There were statistical analyses performed, but the presentation of the results was poor, as was the understanding of it. Despite the extensive discussion, there are no supporting results. The conclusion part is completely missing. The style and grammar are very poor, so it is hard to understand what the author is trying to say. The literature review is outdated and very limited. There is a need for complete reorganization and editing, paying more attention to details of the research.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, please check the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript is significantly improved from the previous version. Authors explain the study more clearly and figures-tables help to understand the study. This manuscript requires English modification, but still relatively understanable. Few comments on the manuscript are as follows'

Abstract:

Abstract need to be more concise and clearly describe the study's objective, methodology, important findings, and suggestion (if any).

L10-14: very general issues that are not very effective for the abstract.

L32-33: since the objective is located here, the upper part (L10-L32) are introduction/background. In this manner, introduction/background is too long for an abstract, while methodology, result, and important findings are not described enough.  

Discussion:

Authors minimally compared this study with other supporting or contradicting studies . Comparing the result with previous study and discussing the reason why they are agreeing/contradicting will improve the scientific soundness of this manuscript.

Meanwhile, if the reason of minimum comparison to previous studies is because of limited studies on this topic, then such fact can be described in the introduction to strengthen the reason why this study need to be conducted.

Since this manuscript has no conclusion, the last paragraph should be a closing paragraph that conclude the whole study. L372-380 can be transformed and developed into a concluding paragraph.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comment. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor

I have seen too many corrections by authors. 

I am satisfided from revised version. 

My decision is Accept in the current form.

Best

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comment. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Overall, the paper has been revised in line with the reviewers' comments, although some aspects could still be developed. The article has poor reference to world literature and similar empirical research. Development of the scope of disscussion and more references are advisable. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comment. Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf