Next Article in Journal
Seasonal Drought Pattern Changes Due to Climate Variability: Case Study in Afghanistan
Previous Article in Journal
An Optimization-Evaluation Agricultural Water Planning Approach Based on Interval Linear Fractional Bi-Level Programming and IAHP-TOPSIS
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Impact Analysis of Slope on the Head Loss of Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Siphon Pipe

Water 2019, 11(5), 1095; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11051095
Reviewer 1: Yahya Sheikhnejad
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2019, 11(5), 1095; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11051095
Received: 25 April 2019 / Revised: 18 May 2019 / Accepted: 22 May 2019 / Published: 25 May 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Hydraulics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find an attached file containing the comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Manuscript ID: water-502750

Title: Impact Analysis of Slope on the Head Loss of Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Siphon Pipe
Authors: Xiaoying Zhang, Lin Li *, Sheng Jin, Yihai Tan, Yangfeng Wu

Responses to Reviewer #1’s Comments

Dear reviewer,

I quite appreciate your insightful comments to my manuscript. Now I have revised my manuscript point by point according to your helpful comments and suggestions. Revised parts are marked in background color yellow in the paper. I hope this revision can meet with approval. The comments and my revisions are addressed point by point below. We are very thankful for the Reviewer’s helpful comments. Below are the detailed responses.


The comments on this manuscript are as follow
:

 

1. This manuscript has many grammatical mistakes in English writing. They have to be revised.

 

We are very sorry for our incorrect writing and grammatical errors in the manuscript. We have commissioned an English- editing institution recommended by MDPI to improve the English writing part and modify all the grammar mistakes.


2.
Author required to recognize more literature in this area. Just as a suggestion, not mandatory, for further references.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306454912001971#f005 https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/10/3/292 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479715303212 Etc.

 

We have made it clear by adding the reference as suggested. In addition to the above literature, other references have been added, in lines 24-38 and lines 50-51.

3.
There are some typo as well, e.g.

Material and method: L65, 4ma

Material and method: L69, 20o [20oC is correct]

 

We are very sorry for our incorrect writing and typing mistakes in the manuscript. We have revised the word using “4m” instead of “4ma” in Line 92. However, to the revise suggestion about 20°C, the 20°refers to the opening angle of triangular thin-plate weir in the downstream not the temperature, I still think it should be expressed in“°” instead of “°C”.


4. All figures containing experimental data must have an error bar according to the uncertainty analysis (e.g. Fig.6, 9, etc.).

 

It is really true as reviewer suggested that error bar should be shown according to the uncertainty analysis, so we have added the error bars to all of the experimental data in Fig. 6 and Fig. 9 in line 192 and line 290.


5. Fig. 13 required to be more vivid and with higher resolution. The interpretation on this figure is zero. Author required to interpret this figure in detail.

We have re-drawn the Fig. 13 as a colorful figure and improved the resolution as suggested. Analysis of the data in the figure is supplemented, and the causes of the error are analyzed, in lines 328-339.


6. It is strongly recommended to add a subsection, ‘practical implications of this study,’ outlining the challenges in the current research, future work, and recommendations, before the conclusion.

 

Considering the reviewer’s suggestions, we have added the content of ‘practical implications of this study’, including the challenges in the current study, the content of future work and recommendations, at lines 346-371.

7. Please provide a concise result in the conclusion part so that reader can clearly follow your paper.

 

As reviewer suggested that we have provided a concise result in the conclusion part to make our work clear for understanding.

 

In all, we appreciate for reviewers’ all helpful comments and valuable suggestions. We have made extensive modification on the original manuscript based on your comments. Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate. Thank you again for your helpful suggestions.




Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and suggestions in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Manuscript ID: water-502750

Title: Impact Analysis of Slope on the Head Loss of Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Siphon Pipe
Authors: Xiaoying Zhang, Lin Li *, Sheng Jin, Yihai Tan, Yangfeng Wu

Responses to Reviewer #2’s Comments

We are very thankful for the Reviewer’s helpful review. We have incorporated these suggestions in the revised manuscript. Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Impact Analysis of Slope on the Head Loss of Gas-Liquid Two-Phase Flow in Siphon Pipe” (Manuscript ID: water-502750). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised parts are marked in background color yellow in the paper, please see the attachment.


Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors revised the manuscript well and it can be considered now for publication.

Back to TopTop