Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is well written and provides some useful information.  However it lacks data is more of a report on progress as opposed to a scientific paper.

Author Response

Reviewer report: this paper is well written and provides some useful information.  However it lacks data is more of a report on progress as opposed to a scientific paper.

Author comment: This paper provides a review of a long-term initiative - we have tried to improve it with more information on the issues experienced by stakeholders in relation to professional drilling.  As background, we have also explained more about the practical nature of the work and lack of academic research into this topic

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

see attached report for details

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your comments - please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper provides some practical experience.  It is not high;y novel scientific discovery included, however still can be of some experience to the readers.

It goes deeply into the history and perhaps more focus should be paid to the most recent and future development.

It is a little bit too much and fully ethically advertising authors business and more attention should be paid to the others as well and comparing the approach with possible competitors.

Please do not include post description and do not use private emails, as they can be fakes

Consultant; dotunadekile@gmail.com

Please eliminate multiple references. After that, please check the manuscript thoroughly and eliminate ALL the lumps in the manuscript. This should be done by characterising each reference individually and by mentioning 1 or 2 phrases per reference to show how it is different from the others and why it deserves mentioning. Multiple references are of no use for a reader and can substitute even a kind of plagiarism, as sometimes authors are using them without proper studies of all references used. In the case, each reference should be justified by it is used and at least short assessment provided.

Multiple references are of no use for a reader and can substitute even a kind of plagiarism, as sometimes authors are using them without proper studies of all references used. In the case, each reference should be justified by it is used and at least short assessment provided.

Tab 3 - the cost is related to inflation, has it been considered and demonstrated?

 

Tab 4 - URLs should be in the List of references and the super links (blue colour) removed.

Using in the list of references, just et al. is politically and socially incorrect and also impolite. Names of the minimum first six authors have to be provided.

 

For reports, books, patents etc should provide the reference with the place and country where issued.

 

Please don not use all capitals as

THE FUTURE OF
WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE: INNOVATION, ADAPTATION AND
ENGAGEMENT IN A CHANGING WORLD, 35th WEDC

 

L. TINCANI, I. ROSS , R. ZAMAN , P. BURR, A. MUJICA and B. EVANS,

 

"CONCEPTION ET EXECUTION OPTIMALES ET
VALORISATION DES FORAGES AU BURKINA FASO,

 

After tidying up the manuscript can be a good contribution to the journal.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.  Please see the attachment below

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

satisfactory revision and recommened to be accepted for publicatio