A Dynamic Management and Integration Framework for Models in Landslide Early Warning System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor and Authors,

I have finished the revision of the manuscript  entitled “A Dynamic Management and Integration Framework for Models in Landslide Early Warning System”.

The authors propose a framework for dynamic management and standardized integration of models in the landslide early warning system (LEWS). The authors describes the technologies  used for reaching  the purpose and well detail the architecture aimed to integrate the various models. Finally, a case study is proposed describing the results and specific tests.

The manuscript well matches with the title, it is well structured and written.  In my opinion it is a good work although addressed to a very restricted and expert audience. Despite it, the intent of the authors is appreciated as aimed to create a more efficient Landslide early warning system.

 

Only few suggestions:

·         Highlight better the results, a dedicated Section could be inserted?  Another possibility could be to change the title of Section 4 into Results and Discussion.  In the current format, the Results are included in the Experiments Sections, it is not very appropriate.

·         Some additional references could be inserted in the 2.1.1 when the authors mention the Susceptibility assessment models. They cite only 1 paper[ 23].

For example:

- Spinetti, C., Bisson, M., Tolomei, C., Colini, L., Galvani, A., Moro, M., ... & Sepe, V. (2019). Landslide susceptibility mapping by remote sensing and geomorphological data: Case studies on the Sorrentina Peninsula (Southern Italy). GIScience & Remote Sensing, 56(6), 940-965.

-Palenzuela Baena, J. A., Scifoni, S., Marsella, M., De Astis, G., & Irigaray Fernández, C. (2019). Landslide susceptibility mapping on the islands of Vulcano and Lipari (Aeolian Archipelago, Italy), using a multi-classification approach on conditioning factors and a modified GIS matrix method for areas lacking in a landslide inventory. Landslides, 16, 969-982.

 

·         I suggest a re-reading by a native speakers to clean up some imprecisions.

I think that after these minor improvements, the manuscript can be considered suitable for the publication.

 

Kind Regards

The quality of the English language is good but, in any case, I would recommend a proofreading by a native speaker to clean up some inaccuracies

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Minor Revision
Well written for a very specific audience, which I don't think is a geoscience journal. Better manuscript for a computer engineering journal or urban management.
References and Figures are good.
Manuscript has been reviewed and only 13 comments/suggestions marked in the pdf need resolution.

Detailed Comments.
1) line 5 - What does this mean:"potential changes in business requirements"? What is the business being referenced? What are potential changes in that business?
2) line 13 - What changes in business requirements would affect the LEWS?

I gave this manuscript an Overall Merit grade of Low because I don't think the application of this technology is really useful to the geoscience world. A better use would be in an urban environment where they have to keep track of a lot of diverse data.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English is pretty good. Just need a few changes to the tense of some of the words. Also, some of the sentences are bit too long.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf