Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Amin Shaban 1,*,
  • Nasser Farhat 2 and
  • Doha Darwish 2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Its am overall interesting work. However, it needs some corrections before getting acceptance to the journal. Some of my comments are:

1. Abstract can be improved. Put more results and discuss in a line or two about the sampling.

2.  In the introduction section, line 80-91, I don't see any citations. A large number of published works are available on the models you cited. Without citations it won't make any sense.

3. In the Materials and Methods section: a) Figure 1 can be improved; b) Materials and data source section need to rewrite; c) I don't understand the need of Figure 3 to Figure 9 in the Materials and Methodology section.

4. Table 7 is not needed, it can be shown through the study area map or clubbed with Figure 1. If it is not possible, please put it in appendices.

5. Discussion section needs to work on. Although authors have tried to initiate discussion, but more is needed. Limitations are missing and would be really strengthen the study. 

 

Wish the authors good luck. 

  

Author Response

  1. Abstract can be improved. Put more results and discuss in a line or two about the sampling.

— Done, (Check the version with Track Changes).

  1. In the introduction section, line 80-91, I don't see any citations. A large number of published works are available on the models you cited. Without citations it won't make any sense.

— New citations have been added, Line 86-93 (Check the version with Track Changes).

  1. In the Materials and Methods section: a) Figure 1 can be improved; b) Materials and data source section need to rewrite; c) I don't understand the need of Figure 3 to Figure 9 in the Materials and Methodology section.

— Figure 1 has been improved (Check the Clear Version)

           — Materials and data source section are re-written, Line 215-224 (in the version with Track Changes).

          — Figures 3 to 9 are put in the “Method”, because these maps are produced by the authors who followed define methodology for maps production of the influencing factors.

  1. Table 7 is not needed; it can be shown through the study area map or clubbed with Figure 1. If it is not possible, please put it in appendices.

— Table 7 has been removed and put in the Appendix.

  1. Discussion section needs to work on. Although authors have tried to initiate discussion, but more is needed. Limitations are missing and would be really strengthen the study.

— Discussion has been separated from the Conclusion (as requested by the Reviewer # 2), and they have been written again, as well as the limitation were highlighted, Line 620-628 (Check the version with Track Changes).

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a model to map potential groundwater zones using remote sensing and GIS in Lebanon. The model integrates multiple geospatial factors, assigning weights and rates to produce an indicative groundwater potential map.My main concerns are as follows:

1. The current introduction lacks a detailed literature review to provide context and demonstrate how the study builds on from existing research. Key studies on groundwater potential mapping using remote sensing and GIS are missing, making it difficult for readers to understand the novelty and significance of the LithoSFR Model. This comparison would help in emphasizing the innovative aspects of the LithoSFR Model.

2. The current Materials and Methods section is overly detailed and lengthy. This section could be more effective if divided into two distinct sections. This separation would enhance readability and allow readers to follow the hydrogeology conditioins and methodological approach more clearly.

3. Assigning weights to the factors in the model is important. The paper should provide more detail of how the weights were determined. The criteria and calculations are not sufficiently explained. The paper should include a more detailed justification for the chosen weights and possibly a sensitivity analysis to show how changes in these weights could affect the outcomes.

4. The study provides resluts of groundwater potential in a specific region of Lebanon, but the study area is small. The paper should discuss how the results could be applied to larger or different regions, especially those with varying geological and hydrological characteristics.

5. The paper does not adequately discuss the limitations of the LithoSFR Model or potential sources of error in the geospatial data used.

6. Although the validation showed high reliability, the sample size of 64 boreholes might be considered small for broader applications.

7. the paper does not provide a comparative analysis with other existing groundwater potential mapping models to highlight its advantages and disadvantages.

8. The discussion lacks depth, particularly in terms of critically evaluating the factors impacting the performance of the methods and discussing the limitations of the study.

9. The final sections are combined and should be separated into a distinct discussion section and a conclusion section to clearly delineate findings from interpretations and implications

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please check the writing, such as:

1. Line 13, "creditable method" should be "credible method."

2. Line 87, 'we build' should be 'we built'

 

Author Response

¡ Responses to Reviewer # 2:

  1. The current introduction lacks a detailed literature review to provide context and demonstrate how the study builds on from existing research. Key studies on groundwater potential mapping using remote sensing and GIS are missing, making it difficult for readers to understand the novelty and significance of the LithoSFR Model. This comparison would help in emphasizing the innovative aspects of the LithoSFR Model.

— The Introduction was re-written considering the above comments, Lines 85-98 & (Check the version with Track Changes).

  1. The current Materials and Methods section is overly detailed and lengthy. This section could be more effective if divided into two distinct sections. This separation would enhance readability and allow readers to follow the hydrogeology conditions and methodological approach more clearly.

— Materials and Methods were split into two sections, plus many improvements (Check the version with Track Changes and the Clear Version).

  1. Assigning weights to the factors in the model is important. The paper should provide more detail of how the weights were determined. The criteria and calculations are not sufficiently explained. The paper should include a more detailed justification for the chosen weights and possibly a sensitivity analysis to show how changes in these weights could affect the outcomes.

— Even though, the whole section on “Methods” have reworked, the above request was addressed, Line 434-443 (Check the version with Track Changes and the Clear Version).

  1. The study provides results of groundwater potential in a specific region of Lebanon, but the study area is small. The paper should discuss how the results could be applied to larger or different regions, especially those with varying geological and hydrological characteristics.

— This has been clearly discussed, Line 478-483 (Check the version with Track Changes).

  1. The paper does not adequately discuss the limitations of the LithoSFR Model or potential sources of error in the geospatial data used.

— This has been clearly discussed, Line 489-497 & 620-628 (Check the version with Track Changes).

  1. Although the validation showed high reliability, the sample size of 64 boreholes might be considered small for broader applications.

— This has been clearly discussed, Line 533-535 (Check the version with Track Changes).

  1. The paper does not provide a comparative analysis with other existing groundwater potential mapping models to highlight its advantages and disadvantages.

 

— This has been clearly discussed, Line 508-512 (Check the version with Track Changes).

  1. The discussion lacks depth, particularly in terms of critically evaluating the factors impacting the performance of the methods and discussing the limitations of the study.

— This has been clearly discussed, Line 508-512 & 598-609 & 635-638(Check the version with Track Changes).

  1. The final sections are combined and should be separated into a distinct discussion section and a conclusion section to clearly delineate findings from interpretations and implications.

— Discussion and Conclusion were split into two sections, and they were both re-written,

 (Check the version with Track Changes).

* The English Language has been revised for the entire manuscript (Check the version with Track Changes). 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of the issues have been addressed. But there is one more issue that needs attention.

The current methods section contains research methods, hydrogeological information data, and even some analysis results. It is recommended that hydrogeological information data be placed in the Materials section and analytical results in the Results section.

Author Response

Thank you for the recommend points.

For the hydrogeological information (entitled in the manuscript as: Hydrogeology of the Study Area), this part is already under Materials section; but, in the previous section 2.3 was named as: Materials and Data Sources, and this raised a misunderstanding., so that we changed it to: Satellite Data Sources instead.

For inserting the analytical results in the Results section, it has been done according to the reviewer’s comment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf