PyGEE-SWToolbox: A Python Jupyter Notebook Toolbox for Interactive Surface Water Mapping and Analysis Using Google Earth Engine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have developed a Python Jupyter Notebook toolbox for the GEE platform for people who are not familiar with programming. From the validation, the tool is simple, easy, fast, and intuitive. Nevertheless, there are still some suggestions you may have a consideration.
1.    Part 2.1 Toolbox Development and Capabilities is less detailed. To a better understanding, it would be better if it has some description of the development of PyGEE-SWToolbox not limited to the platform, feasibility, architecture (e.g., runtime environment, data layer, Business layer, Application/function layer)
2.    Part 2.7 may be combined with Part 3. Firstly, Part 2 is Materials and Methods which is not appropriate to the application of validation. Secondly, Part 3 is a discussion of the results of the validation. Therefore, they should be one section.
3.    Do you have any possible explanation that why Line 204 “between 05/05/2012 -11/04/2014 where the SLC failed on Landsat 7” and why the difference is large at the Neversink Reservoir? 

Author Response

Please see the attached document for our response to your questions and comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the article is worthy of investigation. Although it looks like the authors have invested significant amount of time in the preparation of the material, and complete the proposed model well but the content of the paper is not organized probably to highlight the  problem and research gap. However, the following needs to be addressed:

1-The abstract should include the main results and conclusions. List the main ones by name.

2- The problem that have been identified on the introduction part should be supported by references. 

3-At the end of the introduction, it is important for adding the significant of this study.

4-In the introduction section, the research question should be added to represent the philosophy of the research.

5- The gap needed to be enhanced.

6-For convenience, detail flow chart instead of simple one should be added for illustrating the research methodology and all used analysis.

7-The contribution of this study is vague. The authors should clarify how this study contributes to the construction body of knowledge and how the findings of this study can benefit the construction industry practitioners.

8-The novelty with respect to the literature is not clear.

9-Discussion is weak, and the adding to the body of knowledge didn't define well.

10-The authors only focused of the model generation , however they overlooked to illustrate the philosophy for the design of the methodology.

Author Response

Please see our response to your comments and questions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors compltete all the comments and the paper can be published.