Characteristics and Changes in Water Quality Based on Climate and Hydrology Effects in the Cirata Reservoir

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript investigated how climatic and hydrological parameters affected the water quality of Cirata reservoir in one dry and one rainy season. The research and analysis is overall sound and statistics seem rigorous. Most of my comments is related to how the research is presented and writing style. 

• Full forms needs to be provided when introducing an abbreviation for the first time in a manuscript. For eg: TSS, DO, PCA

• The authors repeatedly used the term "was really influenced" throughout the manuscript. Please remove "really'. There is no scientific significance to the term and it does not really mean anything within the context of a research study.

• This manuscript will benefit from a summary table for the results. Several table already exists, however, one table that summarizes the major findings in an "easy to read" format will be useful to the reader. For eg: it can mention season, parameter tested and one line describing how that parameter changed.

• This manuscript requires major improvements in how sentences are constructed : For example : the authors repeatedly say‘ X was really influenced by Y '. A better style is to mix and vary the statement throughout the manuscript. For example : Y affected X.

• Line 368 - Change ‘where showed’ to something grammatically appropriate.

The current writing style seem very monotonous and makes for a very tedious read. Please update or modify sentence construction throughout the manuscript. Some potential ideas can be found in my comments above. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Dear Reviewer 1

Thanks for your comments. We have been revised the manuscript marked with the yellow highlighting as below.

 

Point 1 : Full forms needs to be provided when introducing an abbreviation for the first time in a manuscript. For eg: TSS, DO, PCA

Response 1 : The manuscript has been revised in line number 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 38, 49, 50, 53, 58, 60, 63, 80, 126,  192, 217, 273, 323, 355, 389, and 402.

 

Point 2 : The authors repeatedly used the term "was really influenced" throughout the manuscript. Please remove "really'. There is no scientific significance to the term and it does not really mean anything within the context of a research study.

Response 2 : The “really” words have been removed and revised in line number 23, 32, 73, 201, 214, 225, 232, 261, 304, 315, 330, 371, 437, and 444.

 

Point 3 : This manuscript will benefit from a summary table for the results. Several table already exists, however, one table that summarizes the major findings in an "easy to read" format will be useful to the reader. For eg: it can mention season, parameter tested and one line describing how that parameter changed.

Response 3 : The table has been added in line number 432.

 

Point 4 : This manuscript requires major improvements in how sentences are constructed : For example : the authors repeatedly say‘ X was really influenced by Y '. A better style is to mix and vary the statement throughout the manuscript. For example : Y affected X.

Response 4 : The sentences have been revised in line number 201, 212 - 215, 222 - 225, 231, 232, 236, 258, 263 – 265, 267 – 270, 277 – 279, 282 – 284, 289, 290, 292 – 294, 304, 312 – 313, 315, 321, 328 - 330, 360 – 362,  371 – 374, 385, 397, 398, 409, 437 - 438, and 443 – 444.

 

Point 5 : Line 368 - Change ‘where showed’ to something grammatically appropriate.

Response 5 : The sentence has been revised in line number 413 -414

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well presented. The results are very well correlated with various measured parameters. There are few concerns which I believe will be useful for the improvisation of the manuscript. They are highlighted as:

1. Please re-name Section 1 as "Introduction and Background"

2. Please add manuscript organization at the end of Section 1.

3. It will be better if the authors can put block diagram/flowchart of the proposed methodology.

4. It will be good if the authors can put some areal pics of the cross-sectional sites.

5. Did the authors do the sedimentation of samples from different depth ?

6. Please give a thorough English check. Results should be reported in simple past. 

Dear Editor,

My comments are herewith provided for the improvisation of the manuscript.

Thank you very much.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Reviewer 2

Thanks for your comments. We have been revised the manuscript marked with the yellow highlighting as below.

 

Point 1 : Please re-name Section 1 as "Introduction and Background"

Response 1 : The name of section 1 has been renamed in line number 28

 

Point 2 : Please add manuscript organization at the end of Section 1.

Response 2 : The manuscript organization has been added in line number 82 – 88.

 

Point 3 : It will be better if the authors can put block diagram/flowchart of the proposed methodology.

Response 3 : The flowchart has been put in line number 96 – 97.

 

Point 4 : It will be good if the authors can put some areal pics of the cross-sectional sites.

Response 4 : The sampling site pics have been added in line number 119 - 122.

 

Point 5 : Did the authors do the sedimentation of samples from different depth ?

Response 5 : Kami tidak melakukan samples sedimen berdasarkan variasi kedalaman. Sampling sedimen hanya pada top of sedimen in reservoir floor.

The sediment sample was not sampled in depth variations. Sampling was only carried out on top of the sediment in the reservoir floor. 

 

Point 6 : Please give a thorough English check. Results should be reported in simple past.

Response 6 : The manuscript has been edited by MDPI Language Editing Services. The certificate is attached below.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have described their work nicely. However, I suggest them to consider the points mentioned in the attachment file to improve their manuscript further.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Paper can be accepted for publication after incorporating the minor corrections suggested in the attachment.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thanks for your comments. We have been revised the manuscript marked with the yellow highlighting as below.

 

GENERAL COMMENT

Point 1 : Plagiarism was checked through ithenticate software. It needs to be reduced <10%.

Response 1 : The data are the results of our research. We avoid plagiarism, duplication, or other scientific misconducts. 

 

Point 2 : Minor improvement of English sentence cases is required.

Response 2 : The manuscript has been edited by MDPI Language Editing Services. The certificate is attached below.

 

Point 3 : One ethical statement may be added after conclusion section.

Response 3 : The ethical statement has been added in line number 465 – 467.

 

ABSTRACT

Point 4 : Abstract looks very simple. Improve it with critical findings supported by data.

Response 4 : Abstract has been revised in line number 10 – 25.

 

INTRODUCTION

Point 5 : Start the introduction with one or two generalize sentence of your own.

Response 5 : The sentence has been added in the first paragraph of introduction in line number 29 – 30.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Point 6 : 2.3. Analysis. Include one sub-heading ‘Statistical analysis’.

Response 6 : The sub-heading ‘Statistical analysis’ has been adden in line number 134.

 

RESULTS

Point 7 : 3.1    Need further elaboration

Response 7 : The manuscript has been revised in line number 149 – 157.

 

Point 8 : 3.2    Need further elaboration

Response 8 : The manuscript has been revised in line number 167 – 170.

 

Point 9 : 3.3    Need further elaboration

Response 9 : The manuscript has been revised in line number 178 – 180.

 

Point 10 : 3.4  Include one PCA analysis diagram.

Response 10 : PCA analysis diagram has been added in line number 242 – 245.

 

Point 11 :  3.5 Include one PCA analysis diagram.

Response 11 : PCA analysis diagram has been added in line number 298 – 301.

 

DISCUSSION

Point 12 : Take sentences from Conclusion section for better discussion of your findings.

Response 12 : The manuscript has been revised in line number 366 – 369 and 424 – 428.

 

CONCLUSION

Point 13 :  conclusion section needs further improvement. remove references from conclusion section. Conclusion is lengthy. Reduce it. Some of the portion can be  shifted to discussion section.

Response 13 : Conclusion has been revised in line number 437 – 464.

 

REFERENCES

Point 14 : Include available doi for references.

Response 14 : Doi has been added in line number 481 - 601

Author Response File: Author Response.docx