Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The introduction clearly sets out the problem under investigation.

The methodology is adequate. This explains how the data was collected. The procedures are ordered in a logical way. The method is explained in detail.

The results are clearly set out in a logical sequence.

The conclusions are supported by the results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has a good potential for being appreciated, but it requires some improvements and extensions.

1- The abstract is too long. It is needs some attraction in terms of scientific contribution and obtained results. It should be rewritten to highlight the obtained results.

2- List the sections of the paper at the end of the introduction.

3- Please remove unnecessary parts of the introduction and reduce it to about 700 words. I suggest you summarize the research literatures. You can use the following paper as reference to more clearly define the context and the various alternatives: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/10/5830.

4- Upgrade the quality of figures 13 and 14.

5- The paper discussion is very limited. Please prove your results from the past studies to strengthen your point of view based on your results.   

6- The conclusion of the paper needs to be revised. The key results of the study should be added.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper discusses the correlation analysis between the urban underground pipeline accident rate and the economic and social indicators by using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Also, an analysis model is developed based on the causes of an urban underground pipeline accident

Overall, the manuscript seems good to publish. The abstract, and results & discussion section are well-written. But some minor amendments need to be addressed in the current form of the manuscript. These are:

·       Future scope section should be added.

·       Improve the quality of Figures 13 & 14.

 

 

Hence, reframing of the manuscript should be done.

Minor grammatical errors are found. It can be addressed, accordingly. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. Why dose this paper select the date of 2021 to study?

2. Figure.1 should be divided into two separate figures.

3. Figure.2 is not clear enough.

4. Do the authors have the copyright of all the figures.

5. The conclusions should be divided into several items.

6. The conclusions should tell some specific new understanding, instead of introduction of the paper content.

7. Besides the economic development, the geographic environment may also impact the urban underground pipeline safety. How do the authors consider this impact?

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

This manuscript titled "A narrative of urban underground pipeline system disasters in China in 2021: spatial and temporal distribution, causal analysis, and response strategies" can be accepted after its minor revision. Please consider the suggestions for revision.

1. Please give the explanation of the abbreviation in parenthesis after the abbreviation where the abbreviation is first used. Please check GDP.

2. There are axis writings that are not given in the figures. Please check the Figures 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf