A Computer Aided Approach for River Styles—Inspired Characterization of Large Basins: A Structured Procedure and Support Tools
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I accepted to review this paper out of a general interest, having knowledge of river geomorphology and numerical modelling. I became aware, however, that I do not have sufficient background to judge the algorithms presented. As a result, I can only give some general feedback and would like to suggest the editor to consider inviting other reviewers.
The abstract and Chapter 1 suggest that the paper presents a new, more systematic procedure for River Styles characterization and classification, and then proposes a new algorithm for a confinement tool and a new algorithm for a reductionist-holistic tool. However, this is not clearly reflected in the subsequent structure of the paper. The systematic procedure is briefly mentioned in Section 2.1 and detailed further in Appendix A, but without substantiating the claim that this procedure is more systematic or clearer than previous procedures. Arguments may be hidden in the text, but an ordinary reader cannot grasp this. Section 2.2 and Chapter 3 present the two new algorithms. It is not clear why one new algorithm is presented as a section "New tools/procedures: confinement" within Chapter 2 on "Improvements added by the GeoMagda Toolbox Manual" whereas the other new algorithm is presented in a chapter of its own, i.e. Chapter 3 "New tools/procedures: a logical-heuristic Reductionist-Holistic algorithm for mono-dimensional variables". A clearer structure would be: Chapter 2 "The GeoMagda Toolbox", Chapter 3 "Confinement algorithm", Chapter 4 "Logical-heuristic reductionist-holistic algorithm for mono-dimensional variables".
When reading the description of the logical-heuristic reductionist-holistic algorithm, it is not clear what the relation is with the terms "logical", "heuristic", "reductionist" and "holistic". These terms seem inappropriate. One might hope there is some logic behind all of the tools used. The term "reductionist" seems to refer to short river reaches whereas the term "holistic" seems to refer to long river reaches. If this is the case, a more precise wording could be found. If this is not the case, the terms definitely require more explanation.
The paper has two Figures 3, one with a caption in line 182 and one with a caption in line 205.
Figures 9 and A2 are missing (only their captions are visible in the pdf file that I downloaded).
Adjectively used nouns in English mostly take the singular form instead of the plural form: behavior of rivers thus becomes river behavior, not rivers behavior (line 17). For the same reason, "computers based" in line 17 must be "computer based" (already correct in lines 34 and 38).
Line 34 and Figure 1: "remote sensed" must be "remotely sensed".
Line 40: "practitioner’s" must be "practitioners’", because the subsequent part of the sentence shows that a plural is intended. Then the same applies to line 103.
Line 125: "a RS" must be "an RS" (the article is followed by a vowel in the pronunciation).
Line 126: I suppose "resumed view" (a view taken up again) must be "summary".
Lines 164, 226: "determining it afterwards reaches are defined" must be "determining it after reaches have been defined".
Lines 176-177: The numbers i and ii in addition to 1 and 2 are redundant.
Line 235: "automized" would more commonly be "automated".
Line 265: "prioritizes" must be "prioritize".
Lines 298, 301: "Parkers" must be "Parker".
Line 305: sigma2zone needs to be written with superscript 2 and subscript zone.
Lines 317-318: The meaning of "the intra-cluster variances countless" is not clear. Should any verb be added?
Line 338: "if is" must be "of".
Lines 428, 432: "keeps" must be "keep".
Line 430: "assigns" must be "assign".
Line 453: "consistent" must be "consistently".
Author Response
Paper TOOLs
Answers to reviewers of 1st round by Andrea et al., March 28, 2020
Reviewer 1
I accepted to review this paper out of a general interest, having knowledge of river geomorphology and numerical modelling. I became aware, however, that I do not have sufficient background to judge the algorithms presented. As a result, I can only give some general feedback and would like to suggest the editor to consider inviting other reviewers.
The abstract and Chapter 1 suggest that the paper presents a new, more systematic procedure for River Styles characterization and classification, and then proposes a new algorithm for a confinement tool and a new algorithm for a reductionist-holistic tool. However, this is not clearly reflected in the subsequent structure of the paper. The systematic procedure is briefly mentioned in Section 2.1 and detailed further in Appendix A, but without substantiating the claim that this procedure is more systematic or clearer than previous procedures. Arguments may be hidden in the text, but an ordinary reader cannot grasp this. Section 2.2 and Chapter 3 present the two new algorithms. It is not clear why one new algorithm is presented as a section "New tools/procedures: confinement" within Chapter 2 on "Improvements added by the GeoMagda Toolbox Manual" whereas the other new algorithm is presented in a chapter of its own, i.e. Chapter 3 "New tools/procedures: a logical-heuristic Reductionist-Holistic algorithm for mono-dimensional variables". A clearer structure would be: Chapter 2 "The GeoMagda Toolbox", Chapter 3 "Confinement algorithm", Chapter 4 "Logical-heuristic reductionist-holistic algorithm for mono-dimensional variables". **Answer: we agree with you and re-structured the paper in a hopefully more easy-to-read fashion. We also slightly changed the title
When reading the description of the logical-heuristic reductionist-holistic algorithm, it is not clear what the relation is with the terms "logical", "heuristic", "reductionist" and "holistic". These terms seem inappropriate. One might hope there is some logic behind all of the tools used. The term "reductionist" seems to refer to short river reaches whereas the term "holistic" seems to refer to long river reaches. If this is the case, a more precise wording could be found. If this is not the case, the terms definitely require more explanation. **Answer: we tried to better explain these terms which, in our opinion, are appropriate
The paper has two Figures 3, one with a caption in line 182 and one with a caption in line 205. **Answer: it was changed and ordered figures**
Figures 9 and A2 are missing (only their captions are visible in the pdf file that I downloaded). ** Answer: The images exist, maybe it was a problem with the MDPI system when it generated the pdf file **
Adjectively used nouns in English mostly take the singular form instead of the plural form: behavior of rivers thus becomes river behavior, not rivers behavior (line 17). For the same reason, "computer based" in line 17 must be "computer based" (already correct in lines 34 and 38). **Answer: it was changed, many thanks
Line 34 and Figure 1: "remote sensed" must be "remotely sensed". **Answer: it was changed, many thanks
Line 40: "practitioner’s" must be "practitioners’", because the subsequent part of the sentence shows that a plural is intended. Then the same applies to line 103. **Answer: it was changed, many thanks
Line 125: "a RS" must be "an RS" (the article is followed by a vowel in the pronunciation). **Answer: we did not know that, it was changed many thanks!!
Line 126: I suppose "resumed view" (a view taken up again) must be "summary". **Answer: it was changed. Thanks
Lines 164, 226: "determining it afterwards reaches are defined" must be "determining it after reaches have been defined". **Answer: it was changed, Thanks
Lines 176-177: The numbers i and ii in addition to 1 and 2 are redundant. **Answer: it was changed. Thanks
Line 235: "automized" would more commonly be "automated". **Answer: it was changed. Thanks
Line 265: "prioritizes" must be "prioritize". **Answer: it was changed. Thanks
Lines 298, 301: "Parkers" must be "Parker". **Answer: it was changed. Thanks
Line 305: sigma2zone needs to be written with superscript 2 and subscript zone. **Answer: it was changed, Thanks
Lines 317-318: The meaning of "the intra-cluster variances countless" is not clear. Should any verb be added? **Answer: it was explained, Thanks
Line 338: "if is" must be "of". **Answer: it was changed. Thanks
Lines 428, 432: "keeps" must be "keep". **Answer: it was changed. Thanks
Line 430: "assigns" must be "assign". **Answer: it was changed. Thanks
Line 453: "consistent" must be "consistently". **Answer: corrected. Thanks
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
My comments for the editor and authors are presented in the attached doc-file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Paper TOOLs
Answers to reviewers of 1st round by Andrea et al., March 28, 2020
Reviewer 2
Dear editor,
Within the manuscript the authors want to present a computer based "toolbox", which is intended as a supplement to the River Styles Framework developed by Brierley and Fryirs. The article contains many oversights and is not properly structured. It starts with the fact that the first and last names of the author names are interchanged.
For me, the introduction is not useful and the structure of the entire manuscript is not convincing. A convincing structure for me would be: Introduction, Geographical setting, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions. Unfortunately, the article is far from that.
**Answer: yes, we agree with you that the structure was not orthodox and simply not clear. Therefore, we now revised it in depth and modified it accordingly, including the title. However, essentially what you suggest is unfeasible because ours is not a classic paper where a method is introduced, a specific case study selected, results shown and discussed. Rather, our paper lies completely on a methodological plane with several articulated sub-sections; and applications are just examples to show concepts and type of results, they do not constitute a full case study to be shown.
A Geographical setting section, hence, is inappropriate exactly because the paper is not about a specific case study; it just uses it to illustrate some specific aspects. Creating a specific section like that would in addition make readers think that all this is centered on that case, which is not (although the methodology was born on it); we claim it is by far more general. Actually, the application examples could have occurred anywhere in the world, so the geographic location is irrelevant and even distracting.
The design of the graphics is also not convincing and does not provide cartographical standards. **Answer: we tried to improve it according to your detailed comments below; really hope now they are acceptable
Overall, unfortunately, I do not consider the manuscript to be worth publishing and recommend a rejection.
My detailed comments:
Line 4 Order of names and surnames is not clear. **Answer: adjusted, thanks.
Line 5 what is the meaning of A.N.? **Answer: These are the initials of the first and last name of each author, according to the MDPI editorial format to be used in the contributions section.
Line 6 “Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain” **Answer: the usual name is with UPM.
Line 8 “Universidad de Concepción, Concepción, Chile” **Answer: adjusted, thanks.
Line 10 “Laboratorio de Geotecnologías y Modelamiento de Recursos Naturales, Universidad de
Concepción, Coceptción, Chile” **Answer: adjusted, thanks.
There are many weak mistakes within the affiliations.
Abstract
Line 17 “advantage of several computer based tools” **Answer: adjusted, thanks.
Line 19 “Geographic Information Systems (GIS)” **Answer: adjusted, thanks.
Line 21 “that have been developed in the current study are presented” which can contribute to the
global community. **Answer: adjusted, thanks
Line 22 to 24, please improve your English. Further, what is the major result of your study? The
abstract does not provide any information that is required for a research article. **Answer: we have significantly modified the abstract trying to fulfill your indications that we share
Key words “Toolbox” = unclear, “Computer Aided analysis” = unclear **Answer: toolbox is a widespread used term and very appropriate here. The same for Computer Aided
Introduction
Line 30 “The River Styles Framework (RS onwards) developed by Brierley and Fryirs, [1,2]” Why do
you refer to that framework, there are existing others as well. Explain. **Answer: we now introduced it with a more substantiated discourse. Hope you like it and be clearer to the readers.
Line 35 “river community” What is that? **Answer: it’s a saying used in several contexts; anyway we eliminated it as it was not essential
For me, the introduction is written in a confuse order. The aims are not well introduced and indicated
and it seems that the authors introduce in a kind of toolbox manual instead of a research topic. The
introduction is full with self-praising filler words. **Answer: we have deeply reviewed it
Line 182 and line 205 both mention “Figure 3”, however these are two different figures. Oversight. **Answer: it was ordered and changed, thanks
Line 220 Legend is missing in figure 4 ” **Answer: adjusted, thanks.
Figures
Fig. 3 The legend is not clear. What is the difference between “active channel” and “partly confined”. **Answer: we use here the very same terminology of the original papers by Gary and Kirstie. Active channel is the object; partly confined is a characteristic of it
The author mention “geological control” in the legend but there are no geological topics within the
figure. There are some tectonic and structural issues, maybe. **Answer: geological is used in loose sense including what you mention; any way we modified it now
What is the meaning of “selected spatial references”. **Answer: the reader needs to locate geographically thinks in the space; these references serve this purpose ; “selected” means that we chose them because they are well known, or located in key places and without overwhelming the figure
The quality of the legend and figure is not convincing to me. **Answer: figure and legend was improved
Figure 3 at page 7: There are no coordinates, no north arrow, no scale. You what to show sophisticated maps here, however, the map does not provide any required standards in cartography. A legend is missing. **Answer: in this figure, it is almost irrelevant the exact location; what counts is the type of problems encountered. In any case, we added the north, while location was already indicated in the Explanation that for some mysterious reason probably you could not see. Sorry, we do not want to be sophisticated; on the contrary, we tried to be as simple as possible
Figure 4 A legend is missing, no geographical coordinates are presented. What is the meaning of the
pale blue area? **Answer: yes thanks, something skipped our attention. Now has been fixed
Figure 6 A legend is missing, no geographical coordinates are presented. **Answer: in this case, the explanation (that possibly you could not see) explains all what is necessary
Figure 8 A legend is missing, no geographical coordinates are presented. **Answer: also in this case, the explanation (that possibly you could not see) explains all what is necessary
Figure 9 is completely missing in the pdf-file. **Answer: unfortunately, for some mysterious reason, you referees could not see it, but in our file was present. Now we tried to fix the invisible problem
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The objectives of this paper can be resumed as follow:
- introducing the scheme of the River Style Framework,
- discuss the potentiality of already-existing computer-based tools,
- present some of the new developed tools and
- present a demonstrative application to the Magdalena case study.
Although the abstract and introduction were very interesting and stimulating to me, after Section 3.2 the reading becomes very difficult and it's very easy to get lost. Personally, after that point I was rather confused and, in the end, I was disappointed by the overall evolution of the Manuscript.
The main problems I see with this paper are the following:
- Another paper was recently published in Water-MDPI (doi:10.3390/w12041147) by a similar author composition and with a very similar title "A Computer Aided Approach for River Styles—Inspired Characterization of Large Basins: The Magdalena River (Colombia)". No clear references are presented in this new manuscript explaining which are the added values of having another manuscript with a very similar title and objective and even with an identical case study implementation: the Magdalena river. In this new paper authors claim to present some new developed tools and demonstrate their usefulness on the real case study of the Magdalena river. However, this is not well presented in the manuscript and on the other hand, in the Water’s publication this exercise is well and extensively realized. I suspect that the authors tried to extent their initial publication with a little effort by including a sketched review and discussion of already existing computer tools combined with a description of some of the new developed tools, which is by the way already presented in the mentioned publication and with a much better presentation and implementation of results on a real case study, that is the same as the one of this paper: the Magdalena river (by the way, Figure 3 is nowhere described/referred in the text and it is exactly the same as Figure 3 of the other paper).
- The structure of the paper is not well presented. There is not a good and clear methodological section. Results are not clearly presented and discussed. The paper actually ends after Section 3.2, which is aimed at presenting a new tool aimed at identifying a methodology that presents a holistic synthesis from reductionist information. The topic is already rather “too conceptual” and the way it is actually explained makes is very difficult to get it: the binary case (section 3.2.2) and the categorical cases (section 3.2.4) are described in a very technical way that is very hard and almost impossible to follow and actually understand. Besides, I was very surprised on turning the page and seeing the Conclusion section after that. I would have expected the description of a real case study example with a fair discussion of results and benefits of applying the new developed tools.
- The authors aim-with this paper-to help practitioners, managers and researchers that are reluctant from applying the Rivers Style Framework (RSF) because of its practical difficulties, by providing an easier guideline making this exercise more transparent and much less subjective. In my opinion, with this manuscript, I would be much more confused on implementing the RSF than before, because no clear indications are given on how to implement and realize such methodology in a transparent way. Moreover, many steps of the developed tools are not automatized, therefore the procedure is not objective and will result in not being easy to implement by those mentioned stakeholders. On the other hand, RSF for the Magdalena river is very well presented in the Water’s publication of the same authors, which I referred to in point. 1.
- An option for the authors could be to focalize this paper on making it a kind of literature review of computer-aided tools in support of the RSF, which might be beneficial to practitioners, managers and researchers lost on the proper choice to adopt. The authors might also foresee to develop a new improved toolbox, starting from the Fluvial Corridor toolbox, which might overcome its limitation by introducing the new tools developed by the authors and be a kind of “container” of useful tools to use for the implementation of the RSF.
- I suggest for an “Extensive editing of English language and style required”, mainly for the style used because in several sections the descriptions are way too technical and difficult to read/follow.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Reviewer says:
The objectives of this paper can be resumed as follow:
introducing the scheme of the River Style Framework,
discuss the potentiality of already-existing computer-based tools,
present some of the new developed tools and
present a demonstrative application to the Magdalena case study.
**Answer: actually, this is not fully matching what is clearly stated in the paper from the beginning ”The aim of this paper is widening the set of practitioners, managers and researchers that would like to apply the RS Framework as potential beneficiaries..”
Reviewer:
Although the abstract and introduction were very interesting and stimulating to me, after Section 3.2 the reading becomes very difficult and it's very easy to get lost. Personally, after that point I was rather confused and, in the end, I was disappointed by the overall evolution of the Manuscript.
**Answer: we are very sorry the paper disappointed you and we think we understood why this happened. So, we now introduced a “bridge” between the Introduction and the following part which should be able to avoid the problem you experienced
Reviewer:
Water paper …”
with a very similar title "A Computer Aided Approach for River Styles—Inspired Characterization of Large Basins: The Magdalena River (Colombia)". No clear references are
**Answer: you are very right; we generated some confusion. The reason, however, is not what you argue: we did not try to produce another paper with little effort. Not at all. The truth is that the GeoMagda project was quite extensive and pushed us to prepare several publications (at the moment: 4 international ones including this one, plus two internal reports), but they have separate lives and could not be published (nor submitted) at the same time. By chance, the one you mentioned came out first. Notice that you were looking for the Magdalena case study here, but you cannot find it exactly because its place is…that paper you mentioned. We clarified in the revised version this point and eliminated the ambiguity. Notice further that exactly to better adhere to facts, we now think that a more appropriate title for this paper would rather be: “A Computer Aided Approach for River Styles—Inspired Characterization of Large Basins: a structured procedure and support tools”. If you and the editor agree, we would be happy to use this latter.
Reviewer:
The structure of the paper is not well presented. There is not a good and clear methodological section. Results are not clearly presented and discussed. The paper actually ends after Section 3.2
**Answer: we think that your statement derives from the initial wrong expectation we generated in the reader letting him/her think that after the introduction he/she would find a methodology explaining how the Magdalena case study would be developed. The paper does not do that. It first presents the main produce which is the procedure (synthetically in the text and extensively in the Appendix). Then provides some zooms on 3 tools incorporated within that procedure; this, on the one side, illustrates the type of contents of the procedure (which includes several similar tools) and, on the other, presents those 3 tools by themselves and as such jumps to a much technical discourse and language.
We tried to make all this much more evident in the new version.
Reviewer:
…exercise more transparent and much less subjective. In my opinion, with this manuscript, I would be much more confused on implementing the RSF than before, because no clear indications are given on how to implement and realize such methodology in a transparent way. Moreover, many steps of the developed tools are not automatized, therefore the procedure is not objective and will result in not being easy to implement by those mentioned stakeholders. On the other hand, RSF for the Magdalena river is very well presented in the Water’s publication of the same authors, which I referred to in point. 1.
**Answer: Again, here we suffer from the fact of having -by necessity- split the work into parts. We stressed now the fact that actually the two papers are highly complementary and, together, do provide that clear guide you could not find here, while this new paper in itself provides the organized collection of technical steps involved by a River Styles exercise.
On the fact that they are not automated, please notice that there is a subtle , but key difference between automatable and automated (or automatized) : we stress the fact that the whole procedure is automatable; some parts have been automated (through suitable tools), while the whole procedure not yet. But this does not mean it is subjective; it just means that manual operations are needed, but just as a temporary substitute of automated ones…with the same output as they would do the same things. This point was already in the conclusions and now has been reinforced.
Lastly, again we stress that this paper does not aim to present the Magdalena case study: it already is in the other one.
Reviewer:
An option for the authors could be to focalize this paper on making it a kind of literature review of computer-aided tools in support of the RSF, which might be beneficial to practitioners, managers and researchers lost on the proper choice to adopt. The authors might also foresee to develop a new improved toolbox, starting from the Fluvial Corridor toolbox, which might overcome its limitation by introducing the new tools developed by the authors and be a kind of “container” of useful tools to use for the implementation of the RSF.
**Answer: In the introduction we mention the main projects/groups/tools already existing and we mention recent papers providing literature review on the available tools ; but what was missing in those papers was exactly a clear indication of which tool to use to conduct a River Styles analysis: this is our first contribution and novelty brough in by our paper.
We have already elaborated what we called Magdalena ToolBOX (referred to in the literature) which does what you suggest, at least in terms of explanations and algorithms. We have been and are in conversation with Piégay team -with which we collaborated- in order to improve their FCT. But that needs a specific project. Actually, they are mentioned in the Acknowledgments
Reviewer:
I suggest for an “Extensive editing of English language and style required”, mainly for the style used because in several sections the descriptions are way too technical and difficult to read/follow.
**Answer: this is our unavoidable weakness as we are not English mother tongue. We now got the support of a very well English trained colleague who significantly improved the writing. In addition, probably by having modified now the expectations of the reader when he goes into the technical sections, he/she may be more prepared to choose a “lower gear” and read it more calmly.
Finally, we thank you sincerely because the paper has indeed improved thanks to your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
I red a few times this manuscript.
It is very long and hard to follow, but well structured.
I think you are very courageous to focus on this issue, thinking that there are already some dedicated ”schools” for creating/elaborating this kind of tools (for ex. herve piegay, nicola surian etc etc...)
Your manuscript brings some novelty with the new tools you proposed.
The manner you explained and applied the new tools, on Magdalena river is quite clear and interesting.
The graphical illustration is clear, also!
You have to be carefull. You copied some paragraphs from this paper published in WATER (about 3%) : A Computer Aided Approach for River Styles—Inspired Characterization of Large Basins: The Magdalena River (Colombia) and some other sources. Autoplagiarism is plagiarism.
Overall, I think this paper can be published.
I will try to use your new tools! And this is the reason why, I recommend it for publishing.
All the best
Author Response
Reviewer 4
I read a few times this manuscript.
It is very long and hard to follow, but well structured.
I think you are very courageous to focus on this issue, thinking that there are already some dedicated ”schools” for creating/elaborating this kind of tools (for ex. Hervé Piégay, Nicola Surian etc etc...)
**Answer: thanks a lot Reviewer! Please notice that we started by actually using the FCT of our friend Piegay’s team and …found a long list of difficulties. So, we started a dialogue and direct collaboration with his team and discovered that indeed there was a long way for the FCT to be a suitable tool for the River Styles applications. As such, we decided to organize all our findings in a structured guide that we called Magdalena ToolBOX because it was born while working at the Magdalena case study. So, in essence we have been working with them and even envisaged the possibility to jointly produce an improved version of the FCT. However, they were looking for a dedicated (funded) project and as such we finalized our project on our own, but with the awareness that we are “on line” with them. Actually, they are mentioned in the Acknowledgments
Reviewer:
You have to be carefull. You copied some paragraphs from this paper published in WATER (about 3%) : A Computer Aided Approach for River Styles—Inspired Characterization of Large Basins: The Magdalena River (Colombia) and some other sources. Autoplagiarism is plagiarism.
Overall, I think this paper can be published.
I will try to use your new tools! And this is the reason why, I recommend it for publishing.
**Answer: yes, you are very right. Also, Reviewer 3 noticed that: we generated some confusion. The reason is that the GeoMagda project was quite extensive and pushed us to prepare several publications (at the moment: 4 international ones including this one, plus two internal reports), but they have separate lives and could not be published (nor submitted) at the same time. By chance, the one you mentioned came out first. It is extremely difficult to switch from one to another without redundancies; we did our best to minimize that. In any case, now we explicitly mention that publication and clearly explained the role of this new one with respect to that, pointing out which are the differences and novelties: that is a resume of the whole River Styles methodology we propose and its application to the Magdalena, while this new paper develops at a more technical level a structures procedure to obtain those outputs.
Notice further that exactly to better adhere to facts, we now think that a more appropriate title for this paper would rather be: “A Computer Aided Approach for River Styles—Inspired Characterization of Large Basins: a structured procedure and support tools”. If you and the editor agree, we would be happy to use this latter.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
