Next Article in Journal
Historical and Projected Changes to the Stages and Other Characteristics of Severe Canadian Prairie Droughts
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluating Efficiency Improvement of Deep-Cut Curb Inlets for Road-Bioretention Stripes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/w12123369
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

Water Privatization and Inequality: Gini Coefficient for Water Resources in Chile

Water 2020, 12(12), 3369; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123369
by Juan Correa-Parra 1,*, José Francisco Vergara-Perucich 1 and Carlos Aguirre-Nuñez 2
Reviewer 1:
Anna Mdee
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2020, 12(12), 3369; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123369
Submission received: 24 September 2020 / Revised: 23 November 2020 / Accepted: 24 November 2020 / Published: 1 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Water Use and Scarcity)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I enjoyed reading this paper and found the methodology interesting and innovative. 

It clearly sets out competing uses of water and the inequalities inherent in this.  What I found disappointing was the discussion section. 

It is very short and doesn't really consider the value of the study in relation to the wider body of literature on inequality in water scarcity e.g. the work by Lyla Mehta. 

Developing this section would really enhance the value and impact of the paper. 

Author Response

Thanks for this supporting commentary and constructive observations. We agree that the paper was quite focused on the Chilean reality instead of situating its contribution in a broader scenario reaching an international value of the findings. So, as suggested, we developed the discussion section based on international literature. Fundamental were the contributions made by Mehta et al. (2018; 2005), Champeyrache (2014), Panayotakis (2011), among others.

This implied some changes in the introduction, and also in the final section for advancing further research in other scenarios.  Please, see the changes in the new version of the article highlighted in yellow.

Reviewer 2 Report

I was excited to read this paper, but more than a little disappointed in the manuscript.  It is, as currently presented, more of a research note than a full blown article.

Author Response

We are sorry about the disappointing view. In order to make it more a blown article than a research note, we added different changes to the paper based on new literature incorporated, further discussions and more critical views on the case that can set these findings in a broader research discussion in an international basis.

We counted 150 changes in relation to the original manuscript, so the data and methods are the same but we extended reflections and references to relevant literature. We hope this time the article have a better form. Please, see the changes in the new version of the article highlighted in yellow.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revisions give much greater strength to this very interesting paper.  I am more than happy to recommend publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Seems to be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Back to TopTop