GPM-Based Multitemporal Weighted Precipitation Analysis Using GPM_IMERGDF Product and ASTER DEM in EDBF Algorithm
, Zhengkang Zuo 1, Feizhou Zhang 1, Jianghua Zheng 3, Shifeng Huang 4, Yi Lin 1, Imran Iqbal 5, Yiyuan Sun 1,6, Ming Yang 1 and Lei Yan 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript requires a lot of tidying up of the English before it should be considered for publication. There are too many grammar mistakes for me to read the manuscript correctly and there are extreme misuse of the names given to certain variables e.g. the weighted weight??
Please tidy up the English by ensuring that the revision is proof edited by an English first language editor.
Specific comments:
1)The Abstract doesn't make sense and is not a reflection of what is in the manuscript.
2) The introduction does not give an overview of what is in the remainder of the manuscript and does not really go into enough detail about why this work is important, but also how it relates to over works.
3) Minor comment but please make sure you define acronyms at their first use.
4) Just a general observation but given the figures of the iterations and stabilization of the convergence to the regression values, i think, then why carry on? How much more of a better performance for you obtain which this slightly better estimate? is it significant?
5) The last paragraph of the conclusions is not valid, you have not shown that this can be used anywhere, you have only demonstrated it for the locations that you have presented.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
August 24, 2020
Manuscript: ‘GPM based Multitemporal Weighted Precipitation Analysis using GPM_IMERGDF Product and ASTER GDEM in EDBF Algorithm’
This paper provides a new downscaling methodology based on GPM IMERGDF rainfall product at 0.1° resolution and ASTER GDEM at 30 m resolution in Empirical distribution-based framework (EDBF) algorithm over the humid region of mainland China. The elevation, longitude, and latitude derived from ASTER GDEM were used as geospatial predictors in an EDBF algorithm to estimate rainfall at finer scale (0.05°). This is a relevant topic lies within the scope of the MDPI remote sensing journal. The article is well organized and neatly written with the appropriate scientific content. Based on the above, I support the publication of this manuscript, but only after a minor revision.
********************************
Title: it fits perfectly the paper content.
Abstract: it is quite adjusted to the paper content.
Introduction: it provides sufficient background and includes relevant references on satellite-based rainfall estimates/products. Objectives and the novelty are clearly presented.
Line 57: correct ‘…not sufficient to provide coverage...’
Materials and Methods: the study area, datasets and methodology are adequately described. In my opinion, for a fair comparison, the gridded ground-based rainfall observations should be used instead of the TRMM 3B42RT and GPM 3IMERGDF rainfall products in this study (e.g., via point-to-pixel analysis). Please, justify this choice.
Line 96: correct ‘…(Figure 2(a)) are selected for investigating GPM based…’
Line 192: correct ‘…which were further evaluated…’
Line 200: ‘…(0.25°, 0.5°, 0.75°,1°, 1.25°and 1.50°, respectively) by applying the pixel averaging method.’ It is not clear what method is used for this task (e.g., bilinear, nearest neighbor, arithmetic mean or other). Please, clarify.
Line 225: correct ‘…standard deviation of predictor…’
Line 239: for clarity, indicate the perfect score and the range for each statistical metric (i.e. coefficient of determination, RMSE and B)
Results and discussion: these are clearly presented.
Line 332: correct ‘…From the figure, it is shown that…’
Conclusions: these are clear and concise and are in line with results.
Author Response
Please see the attachement
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript appears to be well re-written and addresses my concerns as well as the comments of the other authors.
Reviewer 2 Report
September 16, 2020
The authors have revised the remotesensing-915014 manuscript based on most of my comments; so, I support this revised version for publication in Remote Sensing.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
