Next Article in Journal
Research on the Allocation of Flood Drainage Rights of the Sunan Canal Based on a Bi-level Multi-Objective Programming Model
Previous Article in Journal
Predicting Lake Quality for the Next Generation: Impacts of Catchment Management and Climatic Factors in a Probabilistic Model Framework
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 11
Issue 9
10.3390/w11091768
Review Report
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Resistance of Laminar Drain Reinforcement Levee against Overflow Erosion

Water 2019, 11(9), 1768; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11091768
by Yuki Kurakami 1,* and Yasuo Nihei 2
Reviewer 1:
Mohammad Valipour
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2019, 11(9), 1768; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11091768
Submission received: 26 July 2019 / Revised: 9 August 2019 / Accepted: 20 August 2019 / Published: 25 August 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Hydraulics and Hydrodynamics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the Editor to give me a chance to review an interesting and valuable paper. I found some merits in the both methodology and results. In my opinion, this paper has a good potential to be published in the journal. However, I have also some concerns on the different parts of the manuscript. If only the author(s) address carefully to all of my comments, I’ll recommend publication of the manuscript in the journal:

·       In the last paragraph of the Introduction, the authors should clearly mention the weakness point of former works (identification of the gaps) and describe the novelties of the current investigation to justify us the paper deserves to be published in this journal.

·       Focus on the main reasons for the differences between temporal variations of levee failures in cases A-D.

·       Can you compare the results with other models (e.g. GEOSLOPE).

·       What is the reason of decreasing length or gaps during 70-75 min after removal of scour protection (Figure 11a).

·       I could just find 3 journal papers (18% of your references) in your literature cited. The others are national reports, books, or conference papers. This is not acceptable for a manuscript submitted to a prestigious journal like Water. I strongly recommend the authors looking for recent papers published in scientific journal regarding the topic to boost the manuscript.

·       It is necessary to explain the sources of error in this study to consider them in next investigations.

·       The quality of the language needs to improve by a native English speaker for grammatically style and word use.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed to all of the comments. The current version is acceptable to be published in Water.

Back to TopTop