Flood Control Optimization of Reservoir Group Based on Improved Sparrow Algorithm (ISSA)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article considers a Flood control optimization of reservoir group based on Im- 2 proved Sparrow algorithm (ISSA). The accuracy, efficiency and applicability of the results were demonstrated by comparing with the exact results and existing methods.
The work is written very well. It is clearly shown what the main achievement of the author is in relation to previously known results, but it needs to show the relation with the next work.
I believe that the authors's article can be published in the journal "MDPI- Water" with a minor revision.
Reviewer
Author Response
Thank you very much for your eight valuable suggestions. I will revise the article according to your suggestions. For the revised part, please refer to the revised article.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
REVIEW
Title of the paper: Flood control optimization of reservoir group based on Improved Sparrow algorithm (ISSA)
Manuscript Number: water-2066325
General conclusion: Minor Revision.
Comments
After carefully reading the proposed paper, this paper contains an interesting proposal; my overall impression is that the manuscript presents some results that could be useful in practice. I have a good opinion about this work and recommend its acceptance after addressing the following aspects:
My comments are:
1. The Abstract is very general. It is necessary to mention a brief description of the content of the manuscript in a clear and concise manner so that the reader can understand the content of the manuscript.
2. The abbreviations ISSA, POS, and SSA must be included in the abstract.
3. In general, it is usual that the section of the introduction presents (in the following order) the topic, motivations of the work, bibliographical review, objectives, the novelty of the manuscript, and description of its sections, with no formulas, which can be moved to a section of background on the topic. This organization must be considered in the revised manuscript.
4. More information about Figures 2, 3, 4, and 6 should be reported.
5. The authors must provide more details about the computational framework used in the manuscript. For example, software and packages used, features of the computer employed, runtimes, and other computational aspects must be added.
6. More details around Table 3 should be added.
7. In the conclusion section, this section is extensive, it should be shortened as much as possible.
8. The DOI should be added to all references in the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your eight valuable suggestions. I will revise the article according to your suggestions. For the revised part, please refer to the revised article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an original manuscript, which deals with a very useful and interesting topic to the readers. The presentation and length are satisfactory and informative providing sufficient background and including all relevant references. It is a well-organized and concise manuscript and is worthy of publication, however a minor improvement is needed. The comments can be summarized, as follows:
· In the introduction section, the novelty should be better highlighted.
· In general, throughout the manuscript, it would be preferable to use third person in passive voice and not refer “this paper” like in section 4.1.
· In Line 354 there is an unnecessary word “and”.
· The authors should expand the section of results to increase the critical scope.
· It is recommended to insert a short introduction at the beginning of the conclusions section.
Author Response
Hello, reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments below. I will revise the article according to your suggestions. For the revised part, please refer to the revised article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article studies an optimal control problem for the control of a cascade of reservoirs.
Aspects of the article are promising but – starting section 3.2 – the topics seem to change, and one cannot understand the flow of the article.
The case analysis might be interesting – and is again written with a lot of attention – but given that the pages above are not understandable, the reviewer cannot comment on the contribution of the article.
It is unclear how the authors deal with the comparison of multiple models – given that they present a real situation.
Minor errors:
- References need more attention; e.g. the first mention of [12,13] are wrong, the Sparrow alg – line 60 is wrong.
- After equations – 7,8,9 – one should not start a new paragraph and capitals.
Reference listing is wrong – there are a lot of extra characters.
Author Response
Hello, reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comments below. I will revise the article according to your suggestions. Comb the process of the article, make people easier to understand. For the revised part, please refer to the revised article.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
