A Study on Comprehensive Evaluation Methods for Coordinated Development of Water Diversion Projects Based on Advanced SWOT Analysis and Coupling Coordination Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

file attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The theme is worthy for investigation and the paper seems to be a good example of scientific one after some revision. In my opinion, the article is partly prepared in accordance with the requirements for scientific papers.  Discussion is completely missed.  Wide Introduction should be an excellent basement for the proper Discussion. Now the Introduction is wide but there is no discussion. Many equations and proposed indexes need an explanation. Is that a proposal from Authors or commonly known (e.g. Table 5 nad 6)? Some details are shown in the attached file. 

Author Response

Please see attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The present manuscript focuses on the Comprehensive Evaluation Methods for Coordinated Development of Water Diversion Projects. It is important and worthy to be published as water diversion projects are more and more over the world and would exert different influences on the upstream water offering area and the downstream water receiving area. The manuscript is novel and well organized overall. However, there are still some issues needed to be addressed before considering for publication. Authors need to emphasize the novelty of the research in the abstract, introduction and conclusion. I have raised some specific comments and suggestions for authors. Thus, major revision is recommended for the present manuscript.

1. Do not use too many words to introduce the background in the abstract section. More attentions should be paid to the results and findings of the present research.
2. The abstract should be improved. Authors use too many words (Ln14-22), almost half of the abstract, to illustrate the background. It is better to introduce why you do this work use no more than two sentences (two lines). More words should be used to introduce what have you found in your research. It is hard to find out what is the novelty or contribution of the present research to the international community. So please reconsider and reconstruction of your abstract.
3. The abstract section should be involved some quantitative information.
4. The keywords should be reconsidered. They are not good for readers to search. For example, “comprehensive evaluation of coordinated development” is not like key word.
5. Ln 1-2 of the Page 2 “China’s water resources are spatially distributed more in the south than in the north, and more in the east than in the west [3,4]”. This sentence should be check. The Tibetan plateau is called “the water tower of Asia”. Not all western China faces water shortage. The Yangtze River and Yellow River are all originated from the west.
6. The introduction section is painful long, especially the first paragraph, and should be shortened. The unnecessary information can be deleted or briefer.
7. It is better to not put figures in the introduction section.
8. References are needed here to support your conclusion in Ln 38-40. ‘Investigating sources, driving forces and potential health risks of nitrate and fluoride in groundwater of a typical alluvial fan plain’, ‘Groundwater geochemical signatures and implication for sustainable development in a typical endorheic watershed on Tibetan plateau’ is helpful.
9. Ln 98-108: the aims of the present research should be specified.
10. The discussion section should be strengthened. the present manuscript putted too many words on the section “2 Comprehensive Evaluation Method …”.
11. The first paragraph in conclusion section is not conclusion. It is just background introduction and does not belong to this section actually.
12. The second paragraph is also needed to be reorganized. The present version just told what have you done. But what is the results? Conclusions? Findings?

Author Response

Please see attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments have been well addressed. the manuscript is suggested to be accepted for publication.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In my opinion, the article is not prepared in accordance with the requirements for scientific papers. There is completely missing of Discussion - the chapter named "Discussion" is a part of Results. References are too short and includes self-citations or citations of only few Authors from China. In my opinion wide research of analyzed theme through the world is needed. Wide Introduction should be an excellent basement for the proper Discussion. There is no novelty in the paper. Many equations and proposed indexes need an explanation. Is that a proposal from Authors or commonly known (e.g. Table 5 nad 6)? Some details are shown in the attached file. Summarized, the paper is not sufficient to be published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The present manuscript focuses on the Comprehensive Evaluation Methods for Coordinated Development of Water Diversion Projects. It is important and worthy to be published as water diversion projects are more and more over the world and would exert different influences on the upstream water offering area and the downstream water receiving area. The manuscript is novel and well organized overall. However, there are still some issues needed to be addressed before considering for publication. Authors need to emphasize the novelty of the research in the abstract, introduction and conclusion. I have raised some specific comments and suggestions for authors. Thus, major revision is recommended for the present manuscript.

1. The abstract should be improved. Authors use too many words (Ln14-22), almost half of the abstract, to illustrate the background. It is better to introduce why you do this work use no more than two sentences (two lines). More words should be used to introduce what have you found in your research. It is hard to find out what is the novelty or contribution of the present research to the international community. So please reconsider and reconstruction of your abstract.
2. The abstract section should be involved some quantitative information.
3. The keywords should be reconsidered. They are not good for readers to search. For example, “comprehensive evaluation of coordinated development” is not like key word.
4. The introduction section is painful long, especially the first paragraph, and should be shortened. The unnecessary information can be deleted or briefer.
5. It is better to not put figures in the introduction section.
6. References are needed here to support your conclusion in Ln 38-40. ‘Investigating sources, driving forces and potential health risks of nitrate and fluoride in groundwater of a typical alluvial fan plain’, ‘Groundwater geochemical signatures and implication for sustainable development in a typical endorheic watershed on Tibetan plateau’ is helpful.
7. Ln 98-108: the aims of the present research should be specified.
8. The discussion section should be strengthened. the present manuscript putted too many words on the section “2 Comprehensive Evaluation Method …”.
9. The first paragraph in conclusion section is not conclusion. It is just background introduction and does not belong to this section actually.
10. The second paragraph is also needed to be reorganized. The present version just told what have you done. But what is the results? Conclusions? Findings?
11. The references are two few. Only 16 references are cited there. Generally, for a paper published on high quality journal like Sustainability should involved more than 30 references to support you, especially in the introduction section.