Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The authors have corrected the manuscript following all remarks. Paper can be accepted in a current form.

Author Response

Attached please find the manuscript submitted for publication in agronomy: SPHERICAL INTERPRETATION OF INFILTRATION FROM TRICKLE IRRIGATION

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

agronomy-1936652: This paper proposed the new model for irrigation system. But, the style of writing and manuscript structure are unacceptable. It is not in the correct format of the Journal. Introduction is very weak.

1) Lines 1-2: Should not add full stop at the Title.

2) Line 14: Delete “Response  to  rev1”

3) Line 36: Delete “Rev 2”

4) Line 36: “Key words” should be “Keywords”

5) Line 41: Delete “Response to Rev1 and 2 reorganization”

6) Lines 46-51: What are the problem of DI and SDI approaches? Please explain more details why we need new model from this study.

7) Lines 78-80: Effect of soil texture (sand, silt and clay) on soil erodibility and infiltration rate must be explained more details. Please see these papers. [Assessing soil organic carbon, soil nutrients and soil erodibility under terraced paddy fields and upland rice in Northern Thailand. Agronomy 2022, 12(2), 537.] [Estimation of infiltration rate from soil properties using regression model for cultivated land. Geology, Ecology, and Landscapes 2019, 3(1), 1-13.]

8) Line 99: Delete “Response to Rev 1&2”

9) Line 539: In conclusion should not include the references. Delete “(5, 7 ,8,)” or modify the sentence.

10) Line 541 In conclusion is no need to provide the referred table or fig. Delete “(Tables 3 an 4 and fig.6.)”.

11) Funding, Acknowledgments, and Conflicts of Interest sections are really needed.

Author Response

Attached please find the manuscript submitted for publication in agronomy: SPHERICAL INTERPRETATION OF INFILTRATION FROM TRICKLE IRRIGATION

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Accept in present form.

Author Response

The paper was prepared for publication by deleting all comments that were highlighted in response to the reviewers. It is now ready for the next step. Sincerely Jiftah ben asher  

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject of the article is very interesting. However, the method of preparing the article requires significant correction. At least one introductory sentence to the topic is missing in the abstract. There is no description of the novelty of the research method used, both in the abstract and in the introduction. Admission should be reorganized. At the moment, it looks like a story of horticulture. Each subchapter devoted to research methodology is too long described in the introduction. Instead, attention should be paid to the related research problem, to define what is innovative in one's research, and to define the area for which the work has been prepared. However, the description of the methodology is too short. The discussion was designed inappropriately. It is more like summaries. There is no more profound analysis. The way the article is formatted is inconsistent with the journal's requirements. Each drawing is prepared differently.

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript contains many errors (e.g. formatting, front size, front color, figures, table, references, etc.). Also, the English grammar need extensive editing. It seems that the author(s) heedlessly prepared the manuscript. The manuscript is very poor organized for each section.

The title should not use full stop.

Keywords are not efficiency.

Introduction should not be divided into several sections, it seems to be literature review.

Results and discussion are very poor, lacking of discussion the finding with other studies.

 In conclusion, I think this manuscript is not suitable for publication in Agronomy.