Non-Hydrostatic Galerkin Model with Weighted Average Pressure Profile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In the introduction, clearly state the research questions the author aims to address.
2. For the solution process in lines 175–192, include a program flowchart to better illustrate the solution process.
3. Are Equations 35 and 36 derived from Equations 25 and 27? Are they analytical solutions?
4. In Figures 1–3, does "ref" indicate a reference? If so, please provide the source for the data.
5. Where does the experimental data in Figure 4 come from? Please clarify.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The content of the work corresponds to the topic of the journal, but the work requires revision.

1. Most of this manuscript includes material from other works (the percentage of similarity according to the iThenticate report is 46%).
2. The background section is very weak, making it difficult to understand why there is a need to constantly improve the model. The goals and objectives of the study should be explained more clearly.
3. It is necessary to carefully review the work and align it with the author guidelines, which describe the requirements for various sections in detail (e.g., abstract, conclusions, etc.). Currently, the work lacks any quantitative assessment of the results.
4. You state, "A series of analytical solutions and laboratory experiments verify and validate the model." However, your work does not include any laboratory experiments conducted by you. It is unclear what your contribution is to the laboratory experiments of other authors.
5. How accurate is the model described in this work? I did not find any comparison with models from other authors or with your model described in previous work.
6. It is unclear why in Figure 5 the source of experimental data is Young et al. (2009) and not Whalin (1971). It is also unclear where the dimensions in the figure come from, as, for example, in the original (Whalin (1971)), the values are 0.152 m, not 0.1524 m, or 0.457 m, not 0.4572 m.
7. The presented results are not discussed. There are no quantitative comparisons provided.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for the work done to correct it, taking into account all my comments. The article can be published in its current form.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for carefully reading our paper, allowing us to make substantial improvements. We appreciate your positive feedback.