Next Article in Journal
Water Price: Environment Sustainability and Resource Cost
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of the Mean Daily Air Temperature Calculation on the Rainfall-Runoff Modelling
Article
Peer-Review Record

New Approach to Estimate Extreme Flooding Using Continuous Synthetic Simulation Supported by Regional Precipitation and Non-Systematic Flood Data

Water 2020, 12(11), 3174; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113174
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Water 2020, 12(11), 3174; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113174
Received: 20 October 2020 / Revised: 4 November 2020 / Accepted: 11 November 2020 / Published: 13 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Hydrology and Hydrogeology)

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 the author(s) address carefully to the comments, I’ll recommend publication of the manuscript in the journal:

  • Add some of the most important quantitative results to the Abstract.
  • Add/Replace the name of the study area to the Keywords.
  • 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.
  • Add scale to Figure 1.
  • Cite this recent paper (Complexity of Forces Driving Trend of Reference Evapotranspiration and Signals of Climate Change) to show the importance of hydrometeorological information to support the importance of your work:

https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11101081

  • Discuss the variations of the simulated annual maximum daily flows.
  • What are the strategies/recommendations to reduce uncertainties in this study?
  • How can extend the results in other regions with similar/different climates?
  • At the end of the manuscript, explain the implications and future works considering the outputs of the current study.

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.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for your study dealing with the Estimation of extreme flooding based on stochastic weather generators in a Spanish Mediterranean catchment. The article is interesting and innovative, especially from a methodological point of view.

In my opinion, minor changes are required. I would like to request you to consider the following comments in the attached pdf in the revised version of the manuscript. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of water-989689

Very interesting, well written paper with solid data and proposition of a new methodology for future studies. I have only three technical comments/suggestions which may help to strengthen it more.

In my opinion paper after publication maybe considered by Water Editorial Board as "featured" or "editor choice article"

  1. Title

In my opinion the present title of article lacks the "flow" in it's second part.

I think that words "New approach"  should be added to the title to show reader this aspect of work.

"New approach for the estimation of extreme floods based on the continuous synthetic simulation method supported regional and non-systematic flood informations"

  1. Figure 2

The caption should rather starts from  "The locations of ....x.xx"

  1. Methodology

I suggest to add a figure with workflow diagram ilustrating the points 1-5 described in the lines 149-157.  On this diagram should be showed which part of workflow is based on the previous approaches and what is new.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the authors for addressing the comments. The quality of the manuscript is acceptable now.

Back to TopTop