Uncertainty Evaluation in Hydrological Frequency Analysis Based on Confidence Interval and Prediction Interval
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents uncertainty evaluation in hydrological frequency
analysis considering prediction interval. Although the paper has appropriate length and informative content, several parts must be improved and written in better grammar and syntax. It would be essential if authors would consider revising the organization and composition of the manuscript, in terms of the definition/justification of the objectives, description of the method, the accomplishment of the objective, and results. The paper is generally difficult to follow. Paragraphs and sentences are not well connected. And most importantly, equations are not numbered correctly. Please also consider reducing the similarity.
Furthermore, I advise considering using standard keywords to better present the research.
Please revise the abstract according to the journal guideline. It must be under 200 words. The research question, method, and the results must be briefly communicated. The abstract must be more informative.
I suggest having four paragraphs in the introduction for; describing the concept, research gap, contribution, and the organization of the paper. The motivation has the potential to be more elaborated. You may add materials on why doing this research is essential, and what this article would add to the current knowledge, etc. The originality of the paper is not discussed well. The research question must be clearly given in the introduction, in addition to some words on the testable hypothesis. Please elaborate on the importance of this work. Please discuss if the paper suitable for broad international interest and applications or better suited for the local application? Elaborate and discuss this in the introduction.
State of the art needs improvement. A detailed description of the cited references is essential. Several recently published papers are not included in the review section. In fact, the acknowledgment of the past related work by others, in the reference list, is not sufficient. Consequently, the contribution of the paper is not clear. Furthermore, consider elaborating on the suitability of the paper and relevance to the journal. Kindly note that references cited must be up to date.
Elaborate on the method used and why used this method.
Limitations and validation are not discussed adequately. The research question and hypothesis must be answered and discussed clearly in the discussion and conclusions. Please communicate the future research. The lessons learned must be further elaborated in the conclusion by discussing the results to the community and the future impacts. What is your perspective on future research?
To conclude: here are my major concerns to be addressed and highlighted in the revised version.
+many claims in the study have not proper citations.
+state of the art is not presented well.
+research gap and contribution are weak.
+figures must be improved.
+table of acronyms must be included.
+methods are not presented well.
+validation and results must be elaborated more.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Data missing from where reference originate, ref no.: 16-19.
16. Thames Estuary Partnership:Management Guidance for the Thames Estuary,1999. who is author and who publisher, where Guidance are available? 17. National Water Plan 2009-2015. for which coutry, where is it availbalem who is author and who publisher? 18. Annual Report Rijkswaterstaat 2013. who is author and who publisher? 19. J.M. Kind: Economically efficient flood protection standards for the Netherlands, 2012. who publish this?Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper introduces a new method of uncertainty evaluation in hydrological frequency analysis. The confidence interval and prediction intervals were constructed to calculate rainfall under the future climate change conditions. The submission is logically organized and the Authors put considerable efforts to carry out the analyses. In my opinion the submission deserves publishing in the journal. However, there exist some minor shortcomings, which require improvements before the final acceptance of the paper for publication. They are as follows:
- Figure 10: the caption is: “Sample parameter (…); (b) shape parameter”. In my opinion it should be “scale parameter” (same as the vertical axis label). Please correct.
- The “References” require numerous improvements, in accordance with the “Instructions for Authors”.
- Some linguistic corrections are needed.
With regard to the above-mentioned remarks it is recommended to accept the submission for publication after minor amendments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the revised version. I recommend for publication.
