You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Andreas N. Angelakis1,2,
  • Jure Margeta3,* and
  • Miquel Salgot4
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Joan Rose Reviewer 2: Ignasi Rodríguez-Roda Reviewer 3: Marjolein Vanoppen

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       The authors present a review that addresses briefly the history of water within 6 sections: Section 1 called Prolegomena is an introduction on the water history, followed by Section 2 on Water hydro-technology history; relevance to the modern time, Section 3 on Water quality, Section 4 on IWA history, Section 5 on IWA/IWHA-SG on Water History, and finally Section 6 is the Epilogue that includes in brief results and conclusions.    This reviewer very much appreciates this type of historical review and they are worthy of publishing.   However, this publication needs a major revision, resubmission and review.   Thus the following comments are intended to provide ideas on the revision. 

2  1.        The paper also requires an editorial review to improve the English.  There are abbreviations used that need to be defined etc.

32.         The authors should develop a table with a timeline of the history of water that addresses the understanding of water science (philosophy), the technology (including the focus on water quality), the management approaches and the source/reference.   This could include whether this was focused on drinking, storm, irrigation or wastewater.    

4  3.       The current organization is not optimal and there is some redundancy and the topics seem to jump around.   I think that there could be three sections.   An introduction, history with text based on the table recommended above and finally the role of professional organizations.

5  4.         Introduction:  This could start with where we are now, the challenges that the world faces in regard to water (climate, aging infrastructure, lack of infrastructure (eg for sewers and wastewater) inadequate financing, emerging contaminants).  Then describe why do we want to look back in time?   There is a need to understand lessons learned, addressing The One Water concept (wastewater, stormwater, source water, drinking water), new understanding of the value of water and the role of water in society for health, economics and well-being as well as the uptake of new technologies (disinfection and membranes). 

6   5.       The bulk of the paper would focus on the table developed on the timeline on the History of water.   It seems that gaps the in advancing approaches, technology etc could be highlighted (due to wars etc).  The figures would be used in this section as well.   It would be good to add something about how the public works by the Greeks and Romans and others were financed if known.  It is presumed that Kings and others paid for this but used slave or cheap labor.   Maybe the idea of reuse could also be introduced.     It could also be highlighted what was known and was wasn’t known.   

76.         The final section would address the role of the water profession and organizations (IWA and the specialty group) that are the keepers of the knowledge, provide educational opportunities, keep data for sharing, and help advance the goals of water for all, and SDGs around the world. 

Author Response

Manuscript ID: water-2291990

Type of manuscript: Review

Title: Evolution of Hydro-technologies and Relevant Association Focusing on Hellenic World

Authors: Jure Margeta *, Andreas Angelakis1, Miquel Salgot, Zheng Xiao Yun

 

Responses to the Comments of the two Reviewers.

First reviewer

 The authors present a review that addresses briefly the history of water within 6 sections: Section 1 called Prolegomena is an introduction on the water history, followed by Section 2 on Water hydro-technology history; relevance to the modern time, Section 3 on Water quality, Section 4 on IWA history, Section 5 on IWA/IWHA-SG on Water History, and finally Section 6 is the Epilogue that includes in brief results and conclusions.    This reviewer very much appreciates this type of historical review and they are worthy of publishing.   However, this publication needs a major revision, resubmission and review.   Thus the following comments are intended to provide ideas on the revision. 

Answer:

  1. The paper also requires an editorial review to improve the English.  There are abbreviations used that need to be defined etc.

Answer: Done

  1.      The authors should develop a table with a timeline of the history of water that addresses the understanding of water science (philosophy), the technology (including the focus on water quality), the management approaches and the source/reference.   This could include whether this was focused on drinking, storm, irrigation or wastewater.    

Answer: Ttable presenting summery of the history of water technology (treatment) is placed at the end of the text.

.

  1. The current organization is not optimal and there is some redundancy and the topics seem to jump around.   I think that there could be three sections.   An introduction, history with text based on the table recommended above and finally the role of professional organizations.

Answer: It was done in three sections

  1.      Introduction:  This could start with where we are now, the challenges that the world faces in regard to water (climate, aging infrastructure, lack of infrastructure (eg for sewers and wastewater) inadequate financing, emerging contaminants).  Then describe why do we want to look back in time?   There is a need to understand lessons learned, addressing The One Water concept (wastewater, stormwater, source water, drinking water), new understanding of the value of water and the role of water in society for health, economics and well-being as well as the uptake of new technologies (disinfection and membranes). 

Answer: It is added and we did as have been suggested. We start paper with challenges that world faces today.

  1. The bulk of the paper would focus on the table developed on the timeline on the History of water.   It seems that gaps the in advancing approaches, technology etc could be highlighted (due to wars etc).  The figures would be used in this section as well.   It would be good to add something about how the public works by the Greeks and Romans and others were financed if known.  It is presumed that Kings and others paid for this but used slave or cheap labor.   Maybe the idea of reuse could also be introduced.     It could also be highlighted what was known and was wasn’t known.   

Answer: Description on public work and practices have been added.

  1.      The final section would address the role of the water profession and organizations (IWA and the specialty group) that are the keepers of the knowledge, provide educational opportunities, keep data for sharing, and help advance the goals of water for all, and SDGs around the world. 

Answer: Corrected and rewritten.

 

Second reviewer

  1. Should be reviewed by a native English speaker

Answer: Done

  1. Line 97: sudden big jump in timeline, what happened in between?

Answer: The timeline between is added

  1. Line 129: this structure should be discussed earlier, together with a motivation for the paper itself; why was it written? What is its purpose?

Answer: It is added before as an idea of its structure

  • When metioning time periods (e.g. Minoan) I suggest to add the relevant centuries as well, or include a visual that includes the mentioned time-periods and their names.

Answer: The mentioned time added

  • Big innovations in the history of water could be indicated on the aforementioned timeline overview as well.

Answer: Done

  1. Line 190: define HASTA

Answer: Deleted

  1. Figure 3.: the quality of this figure is very bad.

Answer: It is improved

  1. Figure 4.: these numbers are mostly influenced by child mortality. So did this significantly improve specifically?

Answer: Yes. It is added

  1. Line 406: do you have the numbers to prove IWA is still fast growing?

Answer: It is improved

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a curious and interesting paper, although it seems more like an essay than a scientific contribution to the field of water.

Any scientist doing research in the field of water should know the history of water issues, its evolution, and the significant impact on life quality and expectancy. This paper allows the reader to take a look at our roots, understand the evolution of water knowledge and technology linked to philosophy and theology, and discover significant citation and contributions from philosophers and inventors in our field.

On the other hand, I miss the contribution of indigenous knowledge (historical and current) in water management, from the technical point of view and especially for the impact of their beliefs and traditions.

I recommend accepting the paper if you consider ot is in the line of WATER journal, although the English must be carefully reviewed and improved (the writing, especially in the abstract but also throughout the text. There are some typos too, like an HASTA in Spanish), and I think that the two sections explaining the IWA and the IWHA specialist group should be eliminated ( adding a reference to the association is enough).

Author Response

 

Manuscript ID: water-2291990

Type of manuscript: Review

Title: Evolution of Hydro-technologies and Relevant Association Focusing on Hellenic World

Authors: Jure Margeta *, Andreas Angelakis1, Miquel Salgot, Zheng Xiao Yun

 

Responses to the Comments of the two Reviewers.

Second reviewer

  1. Should be reviewed by a native English speaker

Answer: Done

  1. Line 97: sudden big jump in timeline, what happened in between?

Answer: The timeline between is added

  1. Line 129: this structure should be discussed earlier, together with a motivation for the paper itself; why was it written? What is its purpose?

Answer: It is added before as an idea of its structure

  • When metioning time periods (e.g. Minoan) I suggest to add the relevant centuries as well, or include a visual that includes the mentioned time-periods and their names.

Answer: The mentioned time added

  • Big innovations in the history of water could be indicated on the aforementioned timeline overview as well.

Answer: Done

  1. Line 190: define HASTA

Answer: Deleted

  1. Figure 3.: the quality of this figure is very bad.

Answer: It is improved

  1. Figure 4.: these numbers are mostly influenced by child mortality. So did this significantly improve specifically?

Answer: Yes. It is added

  1. Line 406: do you have the numbers to prove IWA is still fast growing?

Answer: It is improved

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

-        Should be reviewed by a native English speaker

-        Line 97: sudden big jump in timeline, what happened in between?

-        Line 129: this structure should be discussed earlier, together with a motivation for the paper itself; why was it written? What is its purpose?

-        When metioning time periods (e.g. Minoan) I suggest to add the relevant centuries as well, or include a visual that includes the mentioned time-periods and their names.

-        Big innovations in the history of water could be indicated on the aforementioned timeline overview as well.

-        Line 190: define HASTA

-        Figure 3.: the quality of this figure is very bad.

-        Figure 4.: these numbers are mostly influenced by child mortality. So did this significantly improve specifically?

-        Line 406: do you have the numbers to prove IWA is still fast growing?

Author Response

There is no reviwer 3

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made significant edits.   There was some reorganization and the authors included a table which is very good.   

The paper still seems a bit long but I think that it reads much better. 

I still feel like the role of professional socities does not fit as well as it should.   Perhaps instead of the details on IWA, just the specialty group and the Joint IWA/IWHA SG  could be highlighted (a few sentences on IWA coudl be mentioned here).  Especially the publications and conferences where the history of water has been cataloged and records brought forward.   I think the group does a amazing job and it is important to have this documentation and pull the science, engineering, anthropology, archeology etc all together.   

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Second round

The authors have made significant edits.   There was some reorganization and the authors included a table which is very good.   

The paper still seems a bit long but I think that it reads much better. 

I still feel like the role of professional societies does not fit as well as it should.   Perhaps instead of the details on IWA, just the specialty group and the Joint IWA/IWHA SG could be highlighted (a few sentences on IWA could be mentioned here).  Especially the publications and conferences where the history of water has been cataloged and records brought forward.   I think the group does a amazing job and it is important to have this documentation and pull the science, engineering, anthropology, archeology etc. altogether.   

Answer:

This suggestion of reviewer 1 is somewhat contrary to the suggestions of reviewer 2 given in the previous revision cycle, who suggested that we process the topic of IWA in more detail, and we did so. So, the changes were not made in the text as the reviewer 1 would like. Namely, this would require a somewhat wider refinement of the work in relation to chapter 2.2 and 2.3. If it is not necessary, we would elaborate on these proposals of the reviewer 1 in a new paper that would deal in more detail with the role of the IWA specialty groups and the Joint IWA/IWHA SG in the elaboration and research of the history of water along with proposals to strengthen their role in solving current water problems induced by climate change.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf