Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Yilun Wei 1,
  • Chang Liu 2 and
  • Lei Pei 3,4
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Arash Adib Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript needs to following minor corrections:

1- Authors did not state important results quantitatively in abstract.

2- Why did not authors use NSE and R2 for performance criteria of PKMA?

3- Authors did not show any map of region of considered dams.

4- In Tables 4 and 5, what are the units of RMSE, MAE and MSE?

5- Authors did not compare obtained results with results of other studies in these dams.

6- I advise that authors state more discussion about obtained results.

Author Response

1- Authors did not state important results quantitatively in abstract.

Dear reviewers, we have revised the conclusions in the abstract section.

2- Why did not authors use NSE and R2 for performance criteria of PKMA?

Dear Reviewer, Due to the numerous metrics for model evaluation, we have chosen MSE, MAE & RMSE as metrics in this paper. From the results, these three indicators can illustrate the superiority of the performance of this model. Therefore, no other evaluation metrics are added in this paper.

3- Authors did not show any map of region of considered dams.

Dear Reviewer, Figure 11(b) in the text shows the schematic layout of all measurement points.

4- In Tables 4 and 5, what are the units of RMSE, MAE and MSE?

Dear reviewers, the units are in mm and have been marked in the text.

5- Authors did not compare obtained results with results of other studies in these dams.

Dear Reviewers, We have compared the commonly used model LSTM as one of the comparison models with the model in this paper. Subsequently, we introduced the HST model, which is commonly used in the field of water engineering, as a comparison. From the results, it is clear that the PKMA model still has better model performance.

6- I advise that authors state more discussion about obtained results.

Dear Reviewer, By introducing the HST model, we have taken the results to further discussion.

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is interesting, has a clear degree of originality, and is appropriate for publication in the journal after performing careful revision. Nevertheless, it needs some further improvements. In general, there are still some occasional grammar errors throughout the manuscript, especially the article "the," "a," and "an" are missing in many places; please make spellchecking in addition to these minor issues. The reviewer has listed some specific comments that might help the authors further enhance the manuscript's quality.

  1. Specific Comments

·        The abstract written by qualitative sentences. It is need to modify and rewrite based on the most important quantity results from this research. The abstract should be redesigned. You should avoid using acronyms in the abstract and insert the work's main conclusion.

·        You have used many abbreviations in the text. From this perspective, an Index of Notations and Abbreviations would be beneficial for a better understanding of the proposed work. Furthermore, please check carefully if all the abbreviations and notations considered in work are explained for the first time when they are used, even if these are considered trivial by the authors. The paper should be accessible to a wide audience. Furthermore, it will make sense to include also the notations in this index.

  • The objectives should be more explicitly stated.
  • The Introduction section must be written on more quality way. The research gap should be delivered on more clear way with directed necessity for the conducted research work.
  • It is better to improve your contributions which are not so clear to show the advantage of

your work.

·        The novelty of this work must be clearly addressed and discussed in Introduction section.

  • The methodology limitation should be mentioned.

Many equations are presented in the paper, and most look OK. However, please check carefully whether all equations are necessary and whether the quantities involved are properly explained. Also, some equations need references.

 

  • Results
  • This section is well written.

 

  • Discussion
  • Overall, the discussion part is weak. The Discussion should summarize the manuscript's main finding(s) in the context of the broader scientific literature and address any study limitations or results that conflict with other published work.

 

  • Conclusion
  • Some future works should be added to your conclusion. Please elaborate it a bit more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewers, We have revised this paper in accordance with your suggestions as follows:
1. We have partially rewritten the abstract to make use of the data in the concluding section of the abstract.
2. We have prepared an index of symbols and abbreviations.
3. We have rewritten the innovations in the introductory section.
4. We have checked the formulae throughout the text and added references.
5. We have rewritten the Discussion and Conclusion sections of the paper.