Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript describes a project of value and great potential.  The aim to synthesize monitoring into an open, collaborative effort is more than welcome given extreme pressures on water resources and so many related needs required for sustainable ecosystems.  It is an intriguing story that makes the reader want to keep track of the project’s progress.

 

A marked-up pdf is included with more detail that will help with editing.

Shown below are some related, overarching comments that will hopefully be useful.

 

1. Consider who is your main audience- often it seems to be IT or computer engineering-oriented.  It should be for a more general audience (e.g., monitoring, water management.)
2. The text does not flow well enough It tends to read like text was lifted from sections of a progress report. A number of sections seem to have too much detail while others have too little. The reader has a tough time, contenting with varying scope, style and detail as they make their way through the document.
3. The manuscript tends to leave the reader wondering what the central objective of the paper was. Perhaps editing with attention to structure and a coordinated message would help.
4. The text needs a lot of editing/polishing. Wording should be examined (e.g., words like “join up” and “pathologies” don’t really work.)
5. Too often, there is unnecessary jargon, or jargon that requires more explanation
6. Figure Legends all need to be more explanatory and tailored to help the reader quickly understand the graphics.  
7. Often the figure legends do not mesh well with the graphics shown in the figures. Make sure they work together to help the reader quickly comprehend the message.
8. Figures graphics are all blurry and often too small, making them hard or impossible to read.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We changed the text according to review. Most figures have been changed and all have been reproduced at 300 DPI resolution.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see my comments in the review report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We changed the text according to review. Most figures have been changed and all have been reproduced at 300 DPI resolution.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is much improved. It is more readable and organized.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your approval

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see my further comments below.

1. In figure 7(a), the "value" of the y axis title is not clear, please revise the definition. It is the same as 7(b). In the figure title, the parameter should relate to an environmental parameter, but this is not well described in the text above. The authors should explain or give examples of some representative environmental parameters in Openhi.net. 
2. The y axis represents the river stage in Figure 8. Please add it to the figure. The value of the y ticks is also missing. 
3.  In the title of table 2, change "applied on" to "applied to";
4. In line 597 of the revised manuscript, please check the balance of the dimension in the equation V=fvVVsurf, the variables are not clearly defined here. 
5.  In line 616 of the revised manuscript, change "a separate publication" to "the future publication"
6. The writing should be further improved.

Author Response

We revised the text and the figures according to comments

Author Response File: Author Response.docx