Next Article in Journal
Heavy Metal Removal from the Water of the River Nile Using Riverbank Filtration
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of Water Quality Based on Trophic Status and Nutrients-Chlorophyll Empirical Models of Different Elevation Reservoirs
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Multiagent System and Rainfall-Runoff Model in Hydrological Problems: A Systematic Literature Review

Water 2021, 13(24), 3643; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13243643
by Bruna Leitzke * and Diana Adamatti
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Water 2021, 13(24), 3643; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13243643
Submission received: 28 October 2021 / Revised: 7 December 2021 / Accepted: 13 December 2021 / Published: 17 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Hydrology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript presents a detailed review of the coupled multiagent system and rainfall-runoff model used in hydrological applications. The authors use a systematic Literature Review methodology focusing on recent 20 years of publications to conduct the detailed literature survey. The work will be of interest to hydrologists and will benefit the readers of Water. The paper needs extensive English editing for easy readability. 

Here are some minor writing issues: 

  1. Line 4: This is just a suggestion; two "present" in a sentence. 
  2. Line 6: "In the first time" - consider rephrasing
  3. Line 27-29: Please rephrase this sentence. 
  4. Line 262: grammatical error
  5. Line 308: Expand SMDBRM
  6. Line 456: Incomplete sentence

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we would like to say that we are happy with your contributions and suggestions. The comments have considerably improved the intent of our work.

We made several changes to the text.

To highlight these changes in LaTeX, we use the \usepackage{ulem} package.

The phrases with a risk (\sout{}) will be deleted from the text.

Red lines (\textcolor{red}{}) indicate writing corrections.

Phrases in blue (\textcolor{blue}{}) indicate changes to the text based on reviewer comments 1.

Phrases in brown (\textcolor{brown}{}) indicate changes to the text based on reviewer comments 2.

Phrases in violet (\textcolor{violet}{}) indicate text changes based on reviewer comments 3.

Below are responses to each of the comments.

We have done an extensive review of English and hope that the reading will be more understandable. Red highlights indicate revisions to the wording, and crossed lines have been excluded from the text.

The reviewer pointed out some writing problems, which are below. Each of them has been fixed and can be seen in the text.

Line 4: This is just a suggestion; two "present" in a sentence. - Correction in line 6

Line 6: "In the first time" - consider rephrasing - Correction in line 8

Line 27-29: Please rephrase this sentence. - Correction in lines 31-33

Line 262: grammatical error. - Correction in line 353

Line 398: Expand SMDBRM. - Correction in line 488

Line 456: Incomplete sentence. - Correction in lines 547-549

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a systematic literature review method for the coupling Multiagent Systems and Rainfall-Runoff Model.
The systematic literature review is a really important practice, and it can be found even at the corona vaccine as describe its creators at https://youtu.be/Kla0nTt0bkI?t=1044

By other hand, the dynamic modeling discipline for decision making in the hydraulic field is a pertinent issue around the globe.
However, the application of the systematic literature review to the couple MAS and RRM is not well motivated. It is a strong assumption that the best models for decision making will be provided by RRM coupled with MAS.
The best model is that one that fit the user requirements so it is really difficult to stay a priori which kind of concept the modeler must follow.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we would like to say that we are happy with your contributions and suggestions. The comments have considerably improved the intent of our work.

We made several changes to the text.

To highlight these changes in LaTeX, we use the \usepackage{ulem} package.

The phrases with a risk (\sout{}) will be deleted from the text.

Red lines (\textcolor{red}{}) indicate writing corrections.

Phrases in blue (\textcolor{blue}{}) indicate changes to the text based on reviewer comments 1.

Phrases in brown (\textcolor{brown}{}) indicate changes to the text based on reviewer comments 2.

Phrases in violet (\textcolor{violet}{}) indicate text changes based on reviewer comments 3.

Below are responses to each of the comments.

We agree that the systematic review was not well motivated. In this sense, we changed part of the introduction of the text. Lines 67-68 and 70-96, present the work justification. In addition, we've added a brief comment about other tools that might be considered. But we emphasize the purpose of the work on lines 143-147.

Reviewer 3 Report

GENERAL
This study reviewed literature on Multiagent Systems (MAS) and Rainfall-Runoff Model (RRM). The paper is relevant for planning water resources management. There are some points which the authors need to first address before their paper can be consIdered for publication.

MAJOR COMMENT
No any information is provided on data driven statistical models (DDSMs). Comprehensive information should be provided on deep learning 
and machine learning approaches of establishing relationships between input and outputs in the process of predicting, for instance, river flow from precipitation and other climatic variables. A number of studies exist on hydrological prediction using DDMS (applied to various regions of the world) and they should be reviewed. Various approaches with respect to DDSMs such as support vector machines, Random forest, Artificial neural network, etc applied in hydrological prediction should be reviewed.

Elaborate literature should be reviewed on the following:

i) types on hydrological models (conceptual, semi-distributed and distributed). In each case a number of examples should be given with 
relevant citations.

ii) sensitivity analysis

iii) Model evaluation

MAJOR COMMENT
The rationale for the review work is weak and should be strengthened. The compelling reason which compelled this review should be strong enough to justify its consideration. What is given in lines 57-63 is inadequate and weak. 

MAJOR COMMENT
There are several statements of facts for which a number of references are required. An example is the sentence in lines 57-59.

MAJOR COMMENT
In the discussion section, the authors should list the various good points they got about the subject matter from the existing literature as well as the weak points to be improved on under future research.

MINOR COMMENTS
Line 28: Delete "to principal"
Line 42: Change "aims to" to "aims at"
Line 43: Change "calculate" to "calculating"
Line 43: Change "describe" to "describing"
Line 89: Change "not" to "no"

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First of all, we would like to say that we are happy with your contributions and suggestions. The comments have considerably improved the intent of our work.

We made several changes to the text.

To highlight these changes in LaTeX, we use the \usepackage{ulem} package.

The phrases with a risk (\sout{}) will be deleted from the text.

Red lines (\textcolor{red}{}) indicate writing corrections.

Phrases in blue (\textcolor{blue}{}) indicate changes to the text based on reviewer comments 1.

Phrases in brown (\textcolor{brown}{}) indicate changes to the text based on reviewer comments 2.

Phrases in violet (\textcolor{violet}{}) indicate text changes based on reviewer comments 3.

Below are responses to each of the comments.

With regard to information about data-based statistical models, we include a brief comment in the introduction. More precisely, in lines 132-145, we comment and exemplify some methods. On lines 150-152 we emphasize that new systematic literature reviews (SLR) can be realized considering other techniques.

We review the literature and include:

i) better explanation of the types of hydrological models (conceptual, semi-distributed, and distributed), and we exemplify each case in lines 282-303.

ii) notions of sensitivity analysis, presented in lines 233-245.

iii) notions of model evaluation, presented in lines 246-252.

We modified the introduction, strengthening our work motivation. In lines 73-100, we present the main reasons and intentions for the development of the SLR presented.

We revised the text and added some references in some sentences and statements.

To highlight the strengths and weaknesses obtained on the topic covered in the SLR, we have inserted a table and comments in the discussion section.

The reviewer pointed out some writing problems, which are below. Each of them has been fixed and can be seen in the text.

Line 28: Delete "to principal". - Correction in line 38

Line 42: Change "aims to" to "aims at". - Correction in line 52

Line 43: Change "calculate" to "calculating". - Correction in line 52

Line 43: Change "describe" to "describing". - Correction in line 52

Line 89: Change "not" to "no". - Correction in line 125

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript looks improved.

Back to TopTop