Hydrological Methodology Evolution for Runoff Estimations at Ungauged Sites

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.      There are so many methods likes ANN, DNN, CNN …etc are available to estimate flood discharge. Why author mention only statistical method, please explain briefly.

2.      In flood frequency analysis author must add different various formulae for evaluation.

3.      Author must add study flow chart for clear visualization of manuscript.

4.      Please modify objective section for clear understanding

5.      Author used comparison figure for analysis of result; author must add different formulae/graphical solutions for better analysis of result.

6.      More scientific description must be added for Figure 7

7.      Comparison statement must be added in the result and discussion section for better visualization of proposed research.

8.      Author must add future scope in the last portion of the manuscript.

9.      Advantage and limitation of the proposed model must be added

10.   More recent literature must be added in the manuscript as well as in reference section

Author Response

Please see attached.  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "Hydrological methodology evolution for runoff estimations at ungauged sites" by Zekâi Şen contains an overview of the basic empirical methods for estimating runoff in ungauged catchments. It shows the historical development of the approach and valuable comments on the advantages and disadvantages of each method/equation. The author reviewed the major methods for ungauged watersheds in terms of their technical requirements and applicability.
In the review, it would be appropriate to mention other empirical formulas (such as Kirpich 1940). In addition, the SCS Runoff Curve Number Method developed by the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was not mentioned. Given the limited number of pages, it should of course be mentioned as one of the most important hydrologic runoff estimation methods. It may be interesting to recall that it has received both support and criticism.
The problem of the different units used in the manuscript results from the original methodology. However, if possible, there should be a unification to the metric system (SI). The review is well structured and clear.The manuscript needs careful review with regard to typographical (e.g., lines 567, 592) or grammatical errors (line 595).

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for revising the manuscript