Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have carefully reviewed your manuscript and found the topic to be interesting and relevant. The study presents valuable insights and has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the field. However, the paper requires some revisions to improve its clarity, structure, and overall scientific quality.

Please find my detailed comments and suggestions in the attached file. I hope these observations will be helpful in strengthening your manuscript.

Kind regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

This is an interesting study, which focuses on a simulated flood inundation model over the rapidly urbanised and data-scarce area – A case study of the Lower Prek Thnot River Basin, Cambodia.  This study demonstrates the application of Rainfall-Runoff inundation through satellite and observed rainfall data. There are five simulation scenarios that were framed with different sets of thematic inputs. The extensive field-based river cross-section is commendable work that provides insightful observational results.

The title of the manuscript could be simplified; it is quite lengthy, and most of the terms are common.

The abstract section needs to be fine-tuned with meaningful information about the best simulation result and its significance.

 

Figure 13 could be brought in before the conclusion. Further, a detailed explanation of the spatial distribution of each category could be provided.  Comparatively, Sim 2 also illustrated better performance spatially. Further, very less predictions over the surroundings of the main trunk channel. How can it be finetuned, or what other parameters will improve the result?  

The discussion section is very limited. It could be better discussed in terms of the existing or comparative study, for ex. Phy et al.'s 2022 study and other similar studies on the same region, as well as on other similar regions, could be discussed.

There are a few superscript errors noticed while mentioning the unit area.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have carefully reviewed the revised version of your manuscript and would like to acknowledge the substantial effort you have dedicated to enhancing its quality. The revisions are comprehensive and have greatly improved the paper’s clarity, structure, and overall scientific merit.

It is clear that you have carefully considered the previous feedback and implemented the necessary modifications. Consequently, the manuscript is now more cohesive, well-organized, and aligned with the journal’s publication standards.

In light of these improvements, I am pleased to recommend the manuscript for publication in its current form.

Kind regards,