Next Article in Journal
Trends of Runoff Variation and Effects of Main Causal Factors in Mun River, Thailand During 1980–2018
Previous Article in Journal
Delineation of Hydraulic Flow Regime Areas Based on the Statistical Analysis of Semicentennial Shallow Groundwater Table Time Series
 
 
Technical Note
Peer-Review Record

Precipitation Characteristic Analysis of the Zhoushan Archipelago: From the View of MSWEP and Rainfall Merging

Water 2020, 12(3), 829; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030829
by Dangwei Xuan 1,2, Qingfang Hu 1,*, Yintang Wang 1, Hanbo Yang 3, Lingjie Li 1 and Leizhi Wang 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2020, 12(3), 829; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030829
Submission received: 24 December 2019 / Revised: 29 February 2020 / Accepted: 12 March 2020 / Published: 15 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Hydrology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In the introduction, authors could at least mention alternative methodology, like a bayesian analysis or Copula,  in order to derive probabilistic distribution of observed rainfall height, conditioned on MSWEP estimates.

see, for examples, :

De Luca, D.L.; Biondi, D. Bivariate Return Period for Design Hyetograph and Relationship with T-Year Design Flood Peak. Water 20179, 673. 

Nelsen, R.B. An Introduction to Copulas, 1st ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1999

Yue, S.; Rasmussen, P. Bivariate frequency analysis: Discussion of some useful concepts in hydrological application. Hydrol. Process. 2002, 16, 2881–2898.

Volpi, E.; Fiori, A. Design event selection in bivariate hydrological frequency analysis. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 57, 1506–1515.

 

Moreover, Authors should clarify some critical aspects:

a) please check eq. (4). I think that the formula is not correct b) please specify, for a non-expert reader in this field, the reasons for which categorical indices are adopted only for daily scales

Author Response

Please see the attchment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attchment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors did not consider my comments in depth. I suggest to Editor to reconsider the manuscript as a Technical note and not as an Original Paper.

Moreover, I highlight for the second time that Eq.(4) is written in an incorrect way.

Author Response

Respnse is in the attchment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I confirm that the manuscript can be considered as a technical note, and not as an original paper.

Authors discussed the possibility of copulas in the Discussion Conclusions section; however, some references should be cited, as those previously suggested:

  1. De Luca, D.L.; Biondi, D. Bivariate Return Period for Design Hyetograph and Relationship with T-Year Design Flood Peak. Water 2017, 9, 673.
  2. Nelsen, R.B. An Introduction to Copulas, 1st ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1999
  3. Yue, S.; Rasmussen, P. Bivariate frequency analysis: Discussion of some useful concepts in hydrological application. Hydrol. Process. 2002, 16, 2881–2898.
  4. Volpi, E.; Fiori, A. Design event selection in bivariate hydrological frequency analysis. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 57, 1506–1515.

 

Finally, I want to remark that the measure of relative bias is defined as

Sum [(Si-Gi)/Gi]

and not as

Sum (Si-Gi)/ Sum (Gi)

see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.011 and references herein.

Please revise all your calculation on the basis of the corrected formula.

Author Response

Please see the attchment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.


Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study investigates the already developed method of spatial distribution of the precipitation. I had a hard time understanding the paper because the writing needs a serious revisit. 

The idea has no novelty. The method applied here was not developed by the authors. The application of this already developed method does not have enough novelty. 

Overall, the paper does not contribute to the body of the knowledge and recommend rejection. 

Some editorial notes: 

use space before your citations.

et al. needs a period. 

benchmark not beachmark. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

In the introduction, authors could at least mention alternative methodology, like a bayesian analysis or Copula,  in order to derive probabilistic distribution of observed rainfall height, conditioned on MSWEP estimates.

see, for examples, :

De Luca, D.L.; Biondi, D. Bivariate Return Period for Design Hyetograph and Relationship with T-Year Design Flood Peak. Water 20179, 673. 

Nelsen, R.B. An Introduction to Copulas, 1st ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1999

Yue, S.; Rasmussen, P. Bivariate frequency analysis: Discussion of some useful concepts in hydrological application. Hydrol. Process. 2002, 16, 2881–2898.

Volpi, E.; Fiori, A. Design event selection in bivariate hydrological frequency analysis. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 57, 1506–1515.

 

Moreover, Authors should clarify some critical aspects:

a) please check eq. (4). I think that the formula is not correct b) please specify, for a non-expert reader in this field, the reasons for which categorical indices are adopted only for daily scales
Back to TopTop