Projected Climate Change Impacts on the Number of Dry and Very Heavy Precipitation Days by Century’s End: A Case Study of Iran’s Metropolises
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1. Similarity index of the paper (27%) is more than the accepted limit so recheck it and bring it to that limit.
2. Many instances in the Introduction, citation is missing, marked in the Red colour..... insert the citation and find the few citation from the MDPI journals also.
3. Table 2 can be improved by adding the few columns, in one column cite the papers which have shown the climate change projections with different scenarios and in next column the area of study, and what is the key conclusion
4. Discuss the abnormal behaviour of Shiraz, it usually have higher rainfall as compared to the others in 1950-60, then it shows less than 410mm. Other stations shows allmost similar trend, whereas Infahan also have the different trend in the lower side. Need to discuss and find the reason?
5. It is suggested to follow up the stationary test before the M K test.
6. The way lines 205 onward written is not correct make it more meaningful and rewrite as a scientific paper and discuss properly.
7. As a whole paper no novelty is reflecting and firm conclusion is there. Authors have to bring in the clear what is the novelty in this since MK test is already well methodology for the trend analysis and authors have just analysed the projections of the different climate models.
8. Authors should suggest from their findings how this study helps to mitigate the disaster and drought kind of things.
9. What are the authors suggestion for the individual to bring down the carbon emmision and follow the ideal pathway for the rainfall prediction.
10. Have a proof read by the english proof reader.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your insightful comments and thorough review of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your points, and our detailed responses can be found in the attached document. Additionally, all changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript for your convenience.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In the presented manuscript, the authors performed a case study to define dry and heavily rainy days based on the future projection of CIMIP. This type of study, with its potential to significantly reduce the negative effects of droughts or floods in a particular region, is of great importance. I have carefully read the presented manuscript, and I have the following suggestions for the authors,
-In the abstract section, It is not necessary to identify the dry or heavily rainy days in brackets. This can be explained in detail in the methodology section.
-The abstract is too long; you can consider shortening it.
-In the first paragraph of the introduction, you mention very certain information about climate change and Iran. However, you did not cite any of this information. You should cite the first paragraph of the introduction if it is based on certain information.
-In general, the introduction section is very weak. The authors should consider adding more references to this part based on the methodologies used and the differences they made in it.
-The objective of the study is clear; however, the novelty is not clear. This information also needs to be added at the end of the introduction section.
-In Figure 1, it will be better to supply the geographical coordinates of the map.
-Figure 2 is completely not understandable. It is not possible to follow any of the historical trends due to the mixture of the lines. The authors should consider dividing the figure by stations. Also, you should add the linear regression line to each of the stations’ historical data. It will make it easier to understand what has happened in all the stations recently.
-There is not a sufficient discussion part in the results section. You should consider adding a comparison part based on recent studies.
-The conclusion section must be rewritten from the beginning. It is not essential to mention each city's results separately in that part. You should mention your methodological strategy and the general outputs.
Based on the explanation above, my opinion is closer to the rejection of the manuscript. However, I will mark the major revision option to let the authors explain their studies in a better way.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your insightful comments and thorough review of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed each of your points, and our detailed responses can be found in the attached document. Additionally, all changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript for your convenience.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Your revisions and the improvements made to the manuscript is appreciated.
I would like to request a further enhancement regarding the figures in the manuscript. Specifically, improving the resolution images and clearer labels quality of the figures would greatly benefit the overall clarity and presentation of the data.
Author Response
Thank you for the comment.
The figures are enhanced.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I have carefully checked the revised manuscript. The authors now provided an improved version. I confirm that they have revised the manuscript based on my concerns and suggestions. I saw that they added the coordinates of the cities in Figure 1 as a text. However, It is not reasonable to do that. In a standard map, the coordinates should be written and marked on the side of the map. The authors should delete the coordinates' text from Figure 1 and create the same map by using GIS software, including grids and coordinates on the sides of it.
Author Response
Thank you for the comment.
Figure 1 is updated to address the comment.
