Next Article in Journal
Using Stable Isotope Analysis (δD and δ18O) and Tracing Tests to Characterize the Regional Hydrogeological Characteristics of Kazeroon County, Iran
Previous Article in Journal
Isolation and Identification of Two Algae-Lysing Bacteria against Microcystis aeruginosa
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Entropy-Based Research on Precipitation Variability in the Source Region of China’s Yellow River

Water 2020, 12(9), 2486; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092486
by Henan Gu 1,2,*, Zhongbo Yu 1,2,*, Guofang Li 2, Jian Luo 2, Qin Ju 1,2, Yan Huang 3 and Xiaolei Fu 4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Water 2020, 12(9), 2486; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092486
Submission received: 15 August 2020 / Revised: 25 August 2020 / Accepted: 3 September 2020 / Published: 5 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Hydrology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments:

This is a study that uses entropy to investigate spatial and temporal variability of precipitation near the source region of the Yellow River. The investigators examine more than 30 years-worth of precipitation records and detect interannual variability and intra-annual variability. They use two variants of the Shannon (Information) Entropy as expressed through the disorder index. The techniques used are appropriate and the figures are neat and readable. The conclusions are supported by the data. The references used are appropriate. However, the manuscript needs to be revised for clarity (grammar). The points below need to be addressed. These grammar points are just examples. Please check the article thoroughly.

 

Minor Comments:

  • Line 20: the unit “a” . What is this? Area? Or is it year? This same unit is used again in Line 365 and Line 419.

 

  • Line 21 Suggest “The wet season” Also, state that this is the beginning of the wet season:  “The start of the wet season has advanced from May ….”

 

  • Section 3.13 Line 196: What does the Disorder Index tell us about the data that a time series cannot / does not? What is the advantage?

 

Specific Comments:

  1. Line 29: Suggest “Meanwhile, ….”

 

  1. Line 53: Suggest writing “…few researchers have been conducted in….”

 

  1. Line 55: Suggest changing “plat” to “flat”

 

  1. Line 84: Is this 2.5 x 106 km2 ?

 

  1. Line 85: suggest writing “….for it is covered…”

 

  1. Line 144: Suggest coefficient of variation (Cv) be abbreviated as (CV) so as not to confuse this with the specific heat of water vapor (at constant volume).

 

  1. Line 198: Suggest “The Disorder Index”.

 

  1. Line 222: Suggest the section 3.2 be named “Statistical Test” or testing?

 

  1. Line 234: Suggest “The LMDI”

 

  1. Line 288: Suggest  “The daily precipitation time series …..”

 

  1. Line 296: Suggest “…AMDI. Also, the southern …….”

 

  1. Line 318: Suggest “Examining the means for clustered grids numbered 1 – 4, for example, demonstrated strong increases in 2003, while means Grids 1 and 3 changed abruptly in 1995. For Grid 4 the mean changed abruptly in 2001, but no abrupt changes were noted in Grid 2

 

  1. Line 416, 444: Suggest: “The freeze-thaw process”

 

  1. Line 467: Suggest “thousand-lakes country”.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The present paper shows a so interesting research work about the precipitation variability in China's Yellow River. To do it, Shanon ENtroy was employed as a well recognised possible solution. The topic is of interest and the methodology is adequate, well organized and explained. Paper format is good but some improvements can be done like, for instance, English style must be revised lie the use of "The" alone the whole document. At the same time, the format of the headings of Table 2 must be revised. Furthermore, the bibliographic revision does not show research works in the last two years about this topic and, due to data mining is a great topic of these years, it is of high interest for researchers to improve and update this revision. Finally, it is interesting to note that researchers employe the first person at the time writes the document so, in accordance with the better scientific way of doing ( impersonal or third person).

In conclusion, the research paper is of interest and the methodology adequate but paper format must be revised.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments:

    The authors have revised the paper as the reviewer suggested. The paper can go to publication.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

After the main changes, I consider the paper adequate for publication.

Back to TopTop