Performance Assessment Comparison between Physically Based and Regression Hydrological Modelling: Case Study of the Euphrates–Tigris Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Unfortunately, the paper is extremely poor and with very limited scientific contribution not acceptable at this level of publication. I have tried to read and help the authors; however, it is hard for me to provide positives feedback about the present work. Starting by very poor literature review, missing research gap, and ending by a badly written and organized section results, the readers cannot understand what is done in the present work. There is no a logical flow of the ideas and the authors have completely failed to justify the novelty and originality and more precisely, why this study is presented. Therefore, a rejection decision is recommended.
Author Response
Please see attached.
Thank you so much.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1- In general, this study make no progress in our actual knowledge in the subject. The linear regression base-model presented by equations (1) to (3) are no value because the constants in these equation are for specific region and ,ay no be applied for regions Therefore, this is more a case study for particular region, requiring calibration and validation by other regions around the world.
2- A critical literature review may help more the necessity and novelty of the present manuscript. The literature review is incomplete and does not show the contribution of the present study.
3- In line 299 the authors wrote “data-scarce region”, however, the equations (1) to (3) need many input data to predict flow discharge (Q). The authors should explain about the paradox in this study.
4- Explain the limitations and assumptions of the present study. How could the authors mange the limitations each parameter reported in the text? Although the authors use many data, the coefficient of determination is not very high in table 5. How did the authors Remove outlier data in this region?
5- Please explain more about reliability of the data, and data analysis. Application of R2 as a criteria may not be representative, please present Adj-R2.
6- More physical discussion needs for the results rather than a descriptive statistical presentation.
7- Abstract and conclusion need to clarify the scientific contribution of this study. There is no new achievement in conclusion. The authors only report particular results in this section.
8- How can the application of this research decrease the cost of studies in “data-scarce regions”?
9- The authors may explain the extension of results for other regions by applying the equations (1) to (3) other regions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Thank you so much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
General Comment
The article shows a topic of great interest to the readership of the journal. However, some aspects should be modified before a possible acceptance of the manuscript for publication. Reviewer suggests major revision.
Detailed Comments
- Introduction. Authors should highlight better the novelty of the study. What's new with respect to literature?
- Introduction. The authors should improve the literature, considering the most recent studies (2022, 2023) on both topics and methodologies, e.g.:
· https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34316-3
· https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128431
· https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-022-02228-9
- Please improve quality of Figure 1, e.g., font size, legend, etc…
- Please improve quality and resolution of Figure 3. If the authors consider it appropriate, Figure 1 and Figure 3 could be merged, reducing the total number of Figures
- Take care of subscripts and superscripts (e.g., R2 in Table 6)
- Authors are invited to provide more information on the different models (e.g., https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108232):
· HBV-Model
· HAD-GEM model
· RCA4-EU
· RCA-MENA
- Results Authors are invited to provide more details on data used for the study (for examples a table with statistics on the considered variable, box plots representation, etc…)
Author Response
Please see attached.
Thank you so much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The present study compares two hydrological models for streamflow estimation in the Euphrates-Tigris Basin. The first model utilizes linear regression and clustering analysis to estimate streamflow using available hydroclimatic data. The second model, the HBV model, is a semi-distributed hydrological model that employs a process-based approach for watershed modelling. The study highlights the potential of combining regression models with physically based models, particularly in regions with hydro-meteorologically homogeneous groups. Overall, the findings contribute to understanding hydrological modelling in the region and have implications for future water resource management."
Comments:
• The conjunctions and connectors in the title should not be capitalized.
• The introduction section effectively presents the research gaps and the study's objective.
• In the study area section, Figure 1 corresponds to two figures. Additionally, both figures should be placed before section 2.2 in the manuscript.
• Section 2.2 is merged with the figure caption.
• The description of the models with respect to FAIR principles (Figure 1) should not be presented under the sub-section "Study Area." It should be included in the appropriate section.
• Data sources are not properly provided and should be either merged with the study area subsection or provided separately.
• Table 2 explains the sub-basin characteristics, but only a single entity (area) is provided.
• The data presented in Table 3 appear to be directly copied from another source.
• Table 3 provides the ranges for several statistical indices, but there is no description of the various thresholds that the authors found satisfactory for model performance throughout the manuscript.
• Table 4 for the calibration period is missing, and the manuscript has no description for Table 5.
• In section 3.2, the authors performed a seasonal model evaluation, which is not mentioned in the methodology section. Moreover, the methodology section is poorly presented, even though the authors claim that another manuscript is submitted. It should be equally well presented and precise for the current manuscript.
· Why the regression model RCA4-EU performed better during the wet season in comparison to HAD-GEM 259 and RCA4-MENA models?
· What is the rationale behind selecting the proposed regression models for the study area?
Overall, the manuscript would benefit from more precise writing and additional effort in restructuring the content to address the provided suggestions.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please find the responses to all your comments/suggestions in the attachment below.
We thank you for your time, consideration, and valuable comments.
Yours sincerely,
Goksel Ezgi Guzey
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
the paper is ready for publication
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you so much for accepting our paper and your valuable comments.
Yours sincerely,
Goksel Ezgi Guzey
Reviewer 2 Report
I regret to write that the revised manuscript is not suitable for this journal because no progress is presented in our understanding and application from the subject.
Physical and theoretical parts of the manuscript need a lot of work and discussion. The results may not be easily extended to other regions, Literature review is incomplete requiring more critical discussion to clarify the novelty of this work.Conclusion reveals no new achievement by the authors.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
We hope this reply finds you well. We would like to express our gratitude for your thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to assessing our work.
We are pleased to inform you that we have carefully considered your comments and have made significant revisions to address the concerns raised. Specifically, we have incorporated a detailed discussion on the seasonal model evaluation in Section 3.2, providing a more comprehensive analysis of our findings.
Furthermore, we acknowledge your feedback regarding the methodology section. We apologize for any confusion caused by its presentation in the initial version of the manuscript. We have since revised the methodology section to ensure it is equally well presented and precise; aligning with the standards expected for the current manuscript.
We kindly request your reconsideration of the paper in its adjusted format, taking into account the revisions made to address your comments. We believe that the amendments strengthened the quality and clarity of our research, making a valuable contribution to the field.
Once again, we sincerely appreciate your insightful comments, which have played a crucial role in improving the manuscript. We remain hopeful that with the addressed concerns, you would also be willing to accept the paper for publication.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Yours sincerely,
Goksel Ezgi Guzey
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors improved the manuscript, taking into account the suggestions of the Reviewers. I suggest to accept the paper in the present form.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you so much for accepting our paper and for your valuable comments.
Yours sincerely,
Goksel Ezgi Guzey
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors replied to my comments and I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you so much for accepting our manuscript. Your comments and suggestions are deeply appreciated.
Yours respectfully,
Goksel Ezgi Guzey
