You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
by
  • Laura Forni1,*,
  • Susan Bresney2 and
  • Sophia Espinoza3
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The reviewed manuscript presents a very interesting study concerning relations between water resources management and poverty degree in selected part of Cambodia. However, in my opinion, in the current state this paper is unpublishable in Water, MDPI, the major revision is required.

There are several important general issues or disadvantages which have to be improved before acceptance of the paper.

  1. The structure of the manuscript is distorted, it does not fit the IMRAD standard (Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion). In some parts of the text information concerning literature review, object description and results are mixed.
  2. The manuscript should be prepared strictly according to requirements of Water, see Instructions for Authors (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water/instructions) and correct the manuscript. The special attention should be paid to literature quotations which now are unfinished (“ref.”, “eric’s paper” or names and years are not accepted).
  3. Some tables are presented in the manuscript in the inappropriate manner.
  4. All figures should be self-explanatory, so the captions explaining all elements are required.
  5. The introductory part of the manuscript is definitely too long, please make it shorter.
  6. Some methodology aspects are unclear, see detailed info below.
  7. Taking into consideration the length of the survey to which the Authors very often refer, in my opinion the main tool of the study, the survey, should be added to the manuscript as the supplementary material by the MDPI’s submission website.
  8. Could you provide any statistics procedures which were used to evaluate the obtained results?
  9. The language should be corrected, in some parts of the text English is not satisfactory.

The list of noted detailed issues:

L 7-15 Please provide full Authors info.

L 111-112 Source quotation?

L 127-128 Any reference for the WEAP software?

L 137 Point 2 – most of the text here presents object description, which is a part of Materials and Methods

L 200 Figure 2 “Bresney at al., 2020 – what does it mean?

L 204 Although the selected papers taken into account in the literature review are quoted in the further text, pleas provide at least number and types of sources used here. Give also the names of biographical data bases used for the performed literature review.

L 227 Please explain why if population of three tested regions was different the number of surveys for each region was equal? Were such groups representative?

L 229 Where are these weights presented in the manuscript?

L 242 Please add the survey as a supplementary material to the manuscript and give a reference in every case of discussing it.

L 279 Which data, please specify?

L 292 MABIA – please provide explanation of the acronym.

Figure 3 Please explain elements of the graph. Describe groups in the caption.

L 316-320 This paragraph presents info for Materials and Methods.

L 369-380 No literature quotation in paragraph 3.1.3.

L 389 Please explain PDoWRAM.

L 427 Table 3 presents the applied sustainability indicators (SDIs), so it shows information from methodology. Please move it to the proper part of the text.

L 545 Captions in Figure 4 are hardly readable.

L 565 Figure 8 please explain groups, what does “Yes” mean?

L 568 Please explain groups in the captions, also present references to survey questions

L 599 Table 4 presents studied scenarios, not the results, so it shows information which should be moved to methodology.

L 616 The manuscript is rather expanded, so the readers may be confused about the “groups”,  maybe the more recognizable names should be used.

L 750-757 Please present references for this paragraph.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The introduction needs to be improved and needs references to support the content for the first paragraph.

2. The method needs to be described in the following points

a. Basis or originality or significance for the survey questions.

b. Basis for defining age groups.

3. References should be carefully reviewed such as "Purkey et al, xxx,". The year is missing and authors need to be carefully reviewed the entire manuscript after careful revisions.

4. The authors can add one or two paragraphs mentioning previous literature about the studied area instead of a different section. Furthermore, authors need to provide a clear idea about the existing literature and the novelty of their approach to the studied area.

5. Table number is missing. Furthermore, please check the numbers in the table titled "Sample size and distribution". The table needs to properly referenced in the text as well.

6. Table numbers should be consistent. There are two tables on page 6 but page 7 showed Table 2. 

7. Provide a general title for 2.3.1 or it's a continuation of 2.2?

8. Please break down the sentence from line number 35 to 38. 

9. Please check the grammar and typos. There are a few articles, grammar, and typos in the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I'm fully satisfied with the revised version of your manuscript.

Regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Please delete one comma in Line 41.

Please check text style carefully for a few discrepancies.