Developing and Analyzing the Agricultural Water Poverty Index in West Iran
, Karim Naderi Mahdei 1,*, Hossein Shabanali Fami 2 and Mahsa Motaghed 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Introduction: Some places referencing is not in scientific format. The purpose of the study is not established well. As AWPI is already in use, what are reasons of applying in particular area of Iran. Motivation has not come clearly.
Line 128: Formula 12 has come much later. Please rephrase the sentence. How authors have used PCA to obtain different criteria.
How weights have been calculated? Give justifications.
If weights are being changed, will the present results hold true? A explanation is needed for this aspect.
From where Classification of Agricultural Water Poverty Index has come? A citation or methodology should be given.
Figure 2: Legend is not proper and also caption
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam,
We hereby would like to resubmit our manuscript which is more revised in response to the reviewer's comments. We appreciate the time and effort that you has dedicated to providing more valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to you for your insightful comments on our paper. According to these valuable comments, we have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions and improve the paper a lot.
Therefore we have added some more information taking into account the space limit and consistency of the manuscript into account
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript titled ‘Developing Agricultural Water Poverty Index (AWPI): Analysis of water resources poverty in the agriculture sector in west Iran’ need following revisions:
- Modify the title of the manuscript and make it short and clear
- Thorough improvement of language and grammatical errors is required.
- The abstract is not informative, include some findings and reason for initiating the study.
- Modify the keywords, avoid repetition of words already in the title again in the keywords
- Check the format of references in text and reference list as well.
- The introduction section needs to be modified and checked for grammatical errors (Line 33-34).
- Clarity of figures need to be checked.
- The headings and subheading should be clearly stated (Example: Line 144-145).
- The format for tables needs to coherent across the manuscript
- Table 4, check for format
- Figure 2, check for format.
- Figure 3 check for clarity
- Improve the conclusion with quantitative results.
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam
We hereby would like to resubmit our manuscript which is more revised in response to the reviewer's comments. First, we would like to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised draft of our paper. We appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing more valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to you for your insightful comments on our paper. According to these valuable comments, we have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions and improve the paper a lot.
We agree with you that some minor changes were essential to be attended to. Therefore we have added some more information taking into account the space limit and consistency of the manuscript into account.
Below, we explain in more detail the revisions made according to your’s comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well written and easy to follow, below are some suggestions/edits:
The authors can add an additional map of the Hamedan Province in figure 3, which will show agricultural activity in various counties if such data is available (it can be based on normalized agricultural produce value or percentage of area under agriculture in each county).
Page 13, Line 360: 'from groundwater' is missing (obtained from groundwater).
Author Response
Dear Sir or Madam
We hereby would like to resubmit our manuscript which is more revised in response to the reviewer's comments. First, we would like to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised draft of our paper. We appreciate the time and effort that you has dedicated to providing more valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to you for your insightful comments on our paper. According to these valuable comments, we have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions and improve the paper a lot.
We agree with you that some minor changes were essential to be attended to. Therefore we have added some more information taking into account the space limit and consistency of the manuscript into account.
Below, we explain in more detail the revisions made according to your’s comments
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have gone through replies. Authors have sufficiently replied to the comments. No further suggestions.
