Next Article in Journal
Geospatial Heterogeneity in Monetary Value of Proximity to Waterfront Ecosystem Services in the Gulf of Mexico
Previous Article in Journal
A Longitudinal Study of the Local Community Perspective on Ecotourism Development in Lombok, Indonesia
Peer-Review Record

Hydrogeological Investigation for the Assessment of Spring Pollution Due to Abandoned Mines in a Karst Area

Water 2021, 13(17), 2399;
by 1,2, 1,3,*, 1,3 and 1,3
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2021, 13(17), 2399;
Received: 16 July 2021 / Revised: 27 August 2021 / Accepted: 27 August 2021 / Published: 31 August 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Hydrogeology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript "Hydrogeological investigation for the assessment of spring pollution due to abandoned mines in the Karst area" is a comprehensive and interesting study of the effects of closed mines on the water quality of karst aquifers. I think the data it contains is extremely valuable and worthy of publication, but the manuscript itself needs to be thoroughly revised, focusing on the structure of the paper itself. In its current form, the manuscript, while containing a great deal of valuable data, is extremely difficult to read.

Namely, the manuscript is written in a rather confusing manner and does not adhere to the basic rules of scientific writing. For example, in the Introduction the authors give a description of the research area, in the Materials and methods they state the results, and in the Results they give a description of the research area.

The Introduction should be written more fluently, not only citing the research and references, but merging everything into a fluid story and removing information about the research itself.

At the end of the Introduction, it is necessary to state the goal and purpose of the paper itself.

Materials and methods must contain information about the research area, hydrogeological features, etc. at the beginning, then about the samples taken, the parameters measured and the methods and techniques used. It must not include research results.

The Results section must contain only the results without discussing them. Also, the Geography and Hydrogeology section does not belong in the Results chapter at all, but in the description of the study area in the Materials and Methods chapter.

I suggest that the authors look at other papers in this field and note their structure.

I also suggest that the authors make sure that their text flows smoothly and is easy to read, that it is divided into subchapters to make it easier to follow and understand the text, and that each subchapter includes some sort of semi-conclusion.

In addition, numbers in the manuscript should be written with three significant figures (0.003; 2.45; 45.6 or 203). It does not make much sense to write 138.15 mm.

Author Response

Please see the attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 40. High concentrations. Need reference for this statement, especially for Fe and Mn contamination issues

Ln 51. What is GFLCF?

Ln 69. Remove ‘etc’.

Ln 113-115.This sentence is not clear needs to be re-worded.

Ln 115. Definitely include a sentence or modify one of the previous statements to have the word ‘objective’ or ‘goals’ in it. For example, the main objectives or main goals of this project are to….This clearly conveys to the reader what the paper is about

Ln 118. When you say ‘first’ something is done, it should be followed by a second and so on.

Ln 126. Where were these previous survey results obtained from? This needs to be mentioned

Ln 128. The survey in 2017 is different from previous surveys? Clarify?

Ln 131. What was the purpose of the ‘special’ drilling?

Figure 1 has a and b-what is the purpose of these two figures. Provide explanation

Ln 152 and elsewhere-the procedure should be always mentioned in the past

Ln 153, remove ‘In addition’

Ln 165-167, what does 20 minutes/time mean?. Also ‘should be’ reads like instructions for future. Rather, use past tense

Ln 206 how many days was the sampling done?

Ln 209 belongs in results

Ln 210 and elsewhere pH not PH

Ln 219-238 Are these descriptions made from the present study or previous investigations. Seems more like a description of the study area and should be moved to methodology section. What is the source for temp information? Any other sources used must be referenced here.

Figure 4. More description is needed? Were these mapped by the authors or modified from previous work (if so, cite). The labels for the boreholes CK-1, CK-2… should be clearly provided in the figure and explained in the caption

Figure 2,3,6 and 7 can be combined into a single figure

Ln 335. Would be helpful to give what the standard values for Fe and Mn above which the water would be considered to be polluted

Ln 337. Tends to increase only at certain periods

Figures 8 and 9, indicate which direction is North. Give units for Figure 9.

Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 all have the same heading

Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 Many of the sentences belong in the results section. Only focus on the interpretations and discussions in the ‘discussion’ section

Ln 550. What is the pollution index and pollution factor here? Again, it is important to mention what Fe standard concentrations are





Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Revisions made are adequate.

Back to TopTop