Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This MS “Assessment of the vulnerability of the coast of lake Alakol to modern geomorphological processes of relief formation” presents the latest research results on the assessment of the vulnerability of the coast of Lake Alakol to modern geomorphological processes of relief formation.

I think this paper is interesting and have many important details. I believe that the information of this manuscript provides a great contribution to understanding of the coastal processes, coastal vulnerability, geomorphology, sustainable use of coasts, in general, studying of endorheic lakes of Central Asia. I suppose that the MS will be interesting for many readers.

However, the current manuscript contains some shortcoming points. Therefore, I suggest to do some revisions before the publication.

1 Edit Figure 1. The location of the study area as well as the coastline is not readable. Highlight the study area on the satellite image and draw two lines, to increase the visibility of the coastline.

2 In the Methods section you used materials published more than 55 years ago, how much more relevant was it to use for example the coastal classification chart map from 1965.

3 In the field studies section you write about the organization of 8 monitoring sites, but in the results section, the data on them are not displayed, but there is a reference to the publication. If these monitoring data are published, please also reference Field studies in the section.

4 In the results section, there should be a link to Table 1, you have written Table 2 - this table belongs to the following section.

5 There are so many subsections in the Results. Consider merging some subsections. For example, subsections 3.1 Classification of the shore and 3.2 Relief types of the coast of Lake Alakol, and also subsections connected with CVI calculation:

6 There are also punctuation errors in the text. Please correct it.

 

I recommend the MS for publication after the minor revision.

English is clear and understandable, though text needs some minor corrections

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

- The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone.

- In Figure 1, a suitable title should be provided for each image.

- What effects can the grading and type of materials have on the resultsin coastal areas?

-  More suitable title should be selected for the table 1 instead of “Shore parameters and their vulnerability with corresponding conditions.”.

-  Using the article entitled " Safari Ghaleh et al. Numerical Modeling of Failure Mechanisms in Articulated Concrete Block Mattress as a Sustainable Coastal Protection Structure ", discuss regarding the coastal protection systems.

- The major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clear stated in the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author to enhance your theoretical discussion and arrives your debate or argument.

-   Explain the reason for choosing this area as a case study?

-  Methods section determines the results. Kindly focus on three basic elements of the methods section.

a. How the study was designed?

b. How the study was carried out?

c. How the data were analyzed?

-   All symbols and parameters should be defined, please check.

-  Draw a flowchart from your workflow that briefly shows the process of the methodology.

- Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the Results, which are not enough.

-  Page 10: the following paragraph is unclear, so please reorganize that:

“Various exogenous processes are activated during shore formation. The leading relief-forming processes in different types of coastal relief were identified. On the flat denudational and accumulative types of relief occupying the western, northwestern, northern, and northeastern coasts, the under-flooding of the low shore areas, surge phenomena, soil salinization, and abrasion of the high shore areas prevails (Figure 3a). On the lakemarsh plain, with coastal aquatic vegetation, the dynamics of waterlogging ranged from 200 to 1,000 meters landward from 1990 to 2018 (Valeyev et al., 2019).”

- It is suggested to add articles entitled “Asmal et al. The Impact of the Environment and People’s Attitudes on Greywater Management in Slum Coastal Settlements” and “Sari et al. Land Procurement for Public Interest Against Destroyed Land: Natural Events and Legal Certainty” to the literature review.

-  Please make sure your conclusions' section underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

The manuscript needs minor language, grammar and syntactic editing. The English language usage should be checked by a fluent English speaker.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article has been revised very well, so I would suggest to accept in its present form.