Next Article in Journal
Spatiotemporal Distribution and Species Composition of Fish Assemblages in the Transitional Zone of the Three Gorges Reservoir, China
Previous Article in Journal
Composition of Sedimentary Organic Matter across the Laptev Sea Shelf: Evidences from Rock-Eval Parameters and Molecular Indicators
Previous Article in Special Issue
Discrepancies on Storm Surge Predictions by Parametric Wind Model and Numerical Weather Prediction Model in a Semi-Enclosed Bay: Case Study of Typhoon Haiyan
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

The Role of Non-Hydrostatic Effects in Nonlinear Dispersive Wave Modeling

Water 2020, 12(12), 3513; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123513
by Chih-Chieh Young 1,2,*, Chin H. Wu 3,* and Tai-Wen Hsu 2,4,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2020, 12(12), 3513; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123513
Submission received: 15 October 2020 / Revised: 11 December 2020 / Accepted: 11 December 2020 / Published: 14 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wave and Tide Modelling in Coastal and Ocean Hydrodynamics)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript discusses Non-hydrostatic effects in nonlinear dispersive wave modelling. Non- hydrostatic effects have been always an important topic in the ocean dynamic dynamics.  The results of this study may help to clarify some non-hydrostatic issues in the wave modelling, and is of great significance in ocean wave studies. I support the acceptance of the manuscript; however, the authors should also correct some minor issues:

  • Line 36, change “paid” to “made”
  • Line 48, change “for” to “into”
  • Line 74, it is better to give definitions of ‘a’ and ‘K’, where they are firstly mentioned, as well as ‘h’ (line 78)
  • Equation (1) below Line 117 "∂v/∂x" should be "∂v/∂y"

Author Response

Please see the attachment for our response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper ‘‘The Role of Non-hydrostatic Effects in Nonlinear Dispersive Wave Modeling’’ is carried out surface water modeling using a high-order NHS method. The methodology is well explained how the numerical method of high-order NHS is used in the present study. Overall the paper is in good quality and adds value to other literature studies centered on this subject. The reviewer feels the paper can be substantially improved before being accepted for publications, and therefore suggests the following revisions:

Figure 3 the marker is too small, it’s a bit hard to differentiate which is X marks, and circles or uses bigger size mark to make it clear the difference between two marks
Figure 5 the same issues as Figure 3, it is better to use a larger figure to show the difference among the figure. The font size in the graphs is too small, larger font size can be used as there is no limitation page on this journal
Figure 8 (c) please adds some explanation about why there is a small phase with an analytical solution.
Figure 11 (b) more briefly explains why there is a phase between the analytic solution and QNHS will give more insight to the reader.
Figure 16 does the marks is the same as the previous figure (Figure 15)? Adds some legend/explanation to this figure
• All the Figures are used in the same pattern, it is better to use a larger font size, and markers. It will make easier to differentiate which is an analytic solution, FNHS, and QNHS

Author Response

Please see the attachment for our response.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop