Utilizing the Harvesting of Rainwater to Provide Safe Road Transportation Efficiency and Increase Water Resources in the Context of Climatic Change
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. There are minor typos to be solved: "are taken] 38[" (line 212), "Des" (Figure 5 A,B "Des"), "Figure8" (line 293 - space needed), "Agu" (line 295)
2. In Equation 1 (line 219) please use the sign for multiplication of those coefficients.
3. Some abbreviations are not explained (e.g.: MADT - line 295).
4. The Results section is hard to read and understand, especially the section 3.3.1 Travel Speed in Rainy Conditions. Please restructure all the information here and the figures/tables to make the paper more readable.
5. The Discussion section is currently more like a literature review and without any link to the proposed approach. Please discuss the relationship between your findings and the other studies mentioned in this section.
6. The first sentence in the Conclusions section describes something general (usually the traffic is influenced by the weather conditions). Please describe briefly if there are particularities for the chosen road compared to other roads.
Author Response
Authors' response to Reviewer # 1 comments
Comment 1: There are minor typos to be solved: "are taken] 38[" (line 212), "Des" (Figure 5 A,B "Des"), "Figure8" (line 293 - space needed), "Agu" (line 295)
Author's response: All the text in the manuscript has been revised and corrected for typo errors and language.
Comment 2: In Equation 1 (line 219) please use the sign for the multiplication of those coefficients.
Authors response: done.
Comment 3: Some abbreviations are not explained (e.g.: MADT - line 295).
Authors' response: all the abbreviations in the manuscript have been revised, monthly average daily traffic (MADT).
Comment 4: The Results section is hard to read and understand, especially section 3.3.1 Travel Speed in Rainy Conditions. Please restructure all the information here and the figures/tables to make the paper more readable.
Authors' response: this section has been revised and restructured.
Comment 5: The Discussion section is currently more like a literature review and without any link to the proposed approach. Please discuss the relationship between your findings and the other studies mentioned in this section.
Authors' response: this section has been revised and restructured.
Comment 6: The first sentence in the Conclusions section describes something general (usually the traffic is influenced by the weather conditions). Please describe briefly if there are particularities for the chosen road compared to other roads.
Authors' response: this section has been revised, restructured and linked to the results.
The authors appreciate the efforts of reviewer # 1 in revising the manuscript and his insightful comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic and work are interesting. But the manuscript needs significant editing and formatting by an English editor. Some of it read well, but some is very difficult to understand because of this. An example of formatting improvements needed, there is a single paragraph that is 2 full pages.
Additionally, some references are missing. As an example, how could this sentence not have a reference: The Coupled Model Intercom- 48 parison Project (CMIP) is used by the World Climate Research Program (WCRP), the 49 working group responsible for modelling for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 50 Change (IPCC).
Author Response
Authors’ response to Reviewer # 2 comments
Comment 1: The topic and work are interesting. But the manuscript needs significant editing and formatting by an English editor. Some of it read well, but some are very difficult to understand because of this. An example of formatting improvements needed, there is a single paragraph that is 2 full pages.
Author's response: All the text in the manuscript has been revised and corrected for typo errors and language.
Comment 2: Additionally, some references are missing. As an example, how could this sentence not have a reference: The Coupled Model Intercom- 48 parison Project (CMIP) is used by the World Climate Research Program (WCRP), the 49 working group responsible for modeling for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 50 Change (IPCC).
Authors’ response: as reviewer # 2 required the required references have been added, and the references section has been modified.
The authors appreciate the efforts of reviewer # 2 in revising the manuscript and his insightful comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The research presents the effects of heavy rain on highway transportation. The Cairo Autostorad highway is taken as a case study. Considering the widely analyzed topic and published pertinent research, the novelty and contribution of this study are limited.
(1). It has been widely accepted that climatic change has a significant sequence on highway operation in previous research (Yasanthi and Mehran), the novelty of this study should be clearly stressed through comparison with the mentioned studies in Discussion.
(2). It is stated in the Abstract that this study proposes rainfall harvesting methods in the context of climatic changes, while no explanation can be found in the Discussion and Conclusion. Please use a separate section to explicitly describe the proposed method and add a pertinent explanation to the Discussion.
(3). The presented results are limited to the used case. As discussed by the authors, the got results from previous works could be different. The applicability of the results in this study to the other case should be commended. It is not convincing to merely state that this case can be adopted as a guideline.
(4). Please carefully review your paper as some grammar problems exist in the current version.
(5) Figures require much more fidelity, especially figures 2 and 10. The Font size and style in figures should be unified. In addition, please expand figure captions, so the figures are almost self-explanatory.
Author Response
Authors' response to Reviewer # 3 comments
Comment 1: There are minor typos to be solved: "are taken] 38[" (line 212), "Des" (Figure 5 A,B "Des"), "Figure8" (line 293 - space needed), "Agu" (line 295)
Authors' response: All the text in the manuscript has been revised and corrected for typo errors and language.
Comment 2: In Equation 1 (line 219) please use the sign for the multiplication of those coefficients.
Authors response: done.
Comment 3: Some abbreviations are not explained (e.g.: MADT - line 295).
Authors' response: all the abbreviations in the manuscript have been revised, monthly average daily traffic (MADT).
Comment 4: The Results section is hard to read and understand, especially section 3.3.1 Travel Speed in Rainy Conditions. Please restructure all the information here and the figures/tables to make the paper more readable.
Authors' response: this section has been revised and restructured. In addition, all the figures/tables were revised and refined to make the paper more readable.
Comment 5: The Discussion section is currently more like a literature review and without any link to the proposed approach. Please discuss the relationship between your findings and the other studies mentioned in this section.
Authors' response: this section has been revised and restructured.
Comment 6: The first sentence in the Conclusions section describes something general (usually the traffic is influenced by the weather conditions). Please describe briefly if there are particularities for the chosen road compared to other roads.
Authors' response: this section has been revised, restructured and linked to the results.
The authors appreciate the efforts of reviewer # 3 in revising the manuscript and his insightful comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I am happy to see that all my previous comments have been addressed. The quality of the paper has been improved, but I still have some comments:
1. I only recommend you to try to summarize the abstract (currently there are given too many details).
2. Also, please to add the equations according to the journal guidelines.
Author Response
Authors' response to Reviewer # 1 comments
I am happy to see that all my previous comments have been addressed. The quality of the paper has been improved, but I still have some comments:
- I only recommend you try to summarize the abstract (currently there are given too many details).
Author's response: All the text in the manuscript has been revised and corrected for typo errors and language. In addition, the abstract has been summarized.
- Also, please add the equations according to the journal guidelines.
Author's response: done.
The authors appreciate the efforts of reviewer # 1 in revising the manuscript and his insightful comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made significant revisions to the manuscript improving it. One item not addressed is there are color charts and in black and white they will not be able to be interpreted. This has to be corrected.
Author Response
Authors' response to Reviewer # 2 comments
The authors made significant revisions to the manuscript improving it. One item not addressed is there are color charts and in black and white they will not be able to be interpreted. This has to be corrected.
Authors' response: done.
The authors appreciate the efforts of reviewer # 2 in revising the manuscript and his insightful comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This reviewer has no comment.
Author Response
Authors' response to Reviewer # 3 comments
The authors appreciate the efforts of reviewer # 3 in revising the manuscript and his insightful comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
