A System for Analysis and Simulating Hydraulic and Hydrogeological Risks Through WebGIS 3D Digital Platforms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has prepared well and orginaly. You can improve more interested. 

Author Response

.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting and falls in the scope of the International Journal of Geo-Information, due to development of the methodology to simulate hydrogeological risks, highlighting the importance of 3-d and digital platforms. It seems to contribute to the literature showing non-published content and showed a new device design. However, the paper must comprise some improvements, namely regarding:

1.      The Abstract is too extensive, giving many justifications for the research, when a brief justification must be exposed in addition to the methodological approach, some quantitative and qualitative results with the main conclusions and goals. The extra analysis must be moved to the Discussion heading.

2.      Introduction paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 must be referenced. Besides, it is missing the addressed Sustainable Development Goals or any Global Directive to support the necessity of research on a worldwide scale.

3.      Materials and Methods are very descriptive, sometimes good, others too much. There is no need of the many “Book” definitions as “flood bed”, it is supposed that the readers have those definitions in mind. However, if the authors considered them essential, they must be referenced. It occurs in 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7,

4.      Equations must follow template’s instructions. Should not have bold letters.

5.      Table 1 must be referenced.

6.      All the back- and front-end in addition to the algorithms could be cited in text and exposed as supplementary content as separate content. It will be better for readers’ attention; the manuscript will be succinct and highlighting the results.

7.      Figures 2, 3, 4, 9, and 11 must be improved for the readers.

8.      References must follow template’s instructions. Authors must reference works from a worldwide perspective, with consolidated references on basic principles and attached to current and recent works from the problematic investigated.

9.      When exposing the results, it seems like the authors are exposing for a class, like on page 28. I would like to see a little more written paragraphs connecting the results with the applicability using other references to support it.

10.   Conclusions are well shown, but too expensive, authors must expose the main results, the limitations of the study, their scientific impact and further investigation based on what has been presented. Furthermore, the analysis and discussion made can have a prior heading for them.

After the modification of those points, the article must be revised again by the reviewers.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

When exposing the results, it seems like the authors are exposing for a class, like on page 28. I would like to see a little more written paragraphs connecting the results with the applicability using other references to support it.

Author Response

Comments 1: The Abstract is too extensive, giving many justifications for the research, when a brief justification must be exposed in addition to the methodological approach, some quantitative and qualitative results with the main conclusions and goals. The extra analysis must be moved to the Discussion heading.

 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have tidied up and streamlined the abstract.

 

Comments 2:  Introduction paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 must be referenced. Besides, it is missing the addressed Sustainable Development Goals or any Global Directive to support the necessity of research on a worldwide scale.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your comments. We have introduced paragraphs in the abstract; we have included global objectives and guidelines to support the research conducted.

 

Comments 3: Materials and Methods are very descriptive, sometimes good, others too much. There is no need of the many “Book” definitions as “flood bed”, it is supposed that the readers have those definitions in mind. However, if the authors considered them essential, they must be referenced. It occurs in 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 

 

Response 3: We have included references.

1

 

 

 

Comments 4: Equations must follow template’s instructions. Should not have bold letters.

 

Response 4: We have removed the bold characters.

 

Comments 5: Table 1 must be referenced.

 

Response 5: We have incorporated the reference to table 1.

 

Comments 6: All the back- and front-end in addition to the algorithms could be cited in text and exposed as supplementary content as separate content. It will be better for readers’ attention; the manuscript will be succinct and highlighting the results.

 

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We have added supplementary documentation to the article for the back-end, front-end and algorithms.

 

Comments 7: Figures 2, 3, 4, 9, and 11 must be improved for the readers.

 

Response 7: We have generated the figures with better resolution.

 

Comments 8: References must follow template’s instructions. Authors must reference works from a worldwide perspective, with consolidated references on basic principles and attached to current and recent works from the problematic investigated.

 

Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. We have included references of works on the issue examined. To date, these types of applications on the web platform are rare, there are specialized and commercial applications on the desktop platform.

 

Comments 9: When exposing the results, it seems like the authors are exposing for a class, like on page 28. I would like to see a little more written paragraphs connecting the results with the applicability using other references to support it.

 

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out.

 

Comments 10: Conclusions are well shown, but too expensive, authors must expose the main results, the limitations of the study, their scientific impact and further investigation based on what has been presented. Furthermore, the analysis and discussion made can have a prior heading for them.

 

Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. We have reduced the section on conclusions and future developments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is quite extensive, which suggests a substantial amount of work has been done. However, this manuscript appears weakness on results.

1. The methods should correspond to the results. However, the methods section does not read like a typical methods section; it seems more like an introduction of principles, and it is difficult to see the connection between the methods and the subsequent case study. For instance, some parts do not appear to have corresponding results in the case study, such as "2.9 Risk mitigation measures."

2. The case study is more reminiscent of a methods section, delving into a large amount of detail, which makes it hard to discern the description of the results. Or it seems that the paper is lacking in results.

3. Due to the aforementioned issues, the lack of appropriate results leads to the research topic and objectives being unclear.

 

In addition, there are many detailed issues:

<1> Figure reference issues. For example, on 3.1 and 3.7, “(see)”.

<2> Abbreviation issues. The digital elevation model has already been abbreviated in the previous text, so there is no need to display its full name again, for example, on 3.3.

<3> Line break issues. For example, on 3.4 the second paragraph, on page 16 the second paragraph, on 3.7 the third paragraph.

<4> Initial capitalization issue. The “area” on 3.5 at the beginning of the second paragraph is not capitalized.

<5> Figures and Visuals. The figures are detailed and informative but could benefit from higher resolution for enhanced readability, for example, Figure 2, 4. Some maps lack clear legends or annotations, making it difficult for readers to interpret key features, for example, lack of compass in Figure 4, lack of legends,scale, compass, latitude and longitude grid in Figure 6.

Author Response

Reviewer 3   Comments 1: 1. The methods should correspond to the results. However, the methods section does not read like a typical methods section; it seems more like an introduction of principles, and it is difficult to see the connection between the methods and the subsequent case study. For instance, some parts do not appear to have corresponding results in the case study, such as "2.9 Risk mitigation measures."   Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have separated some parts of the methods and case studies into a supplementary document so that our contribution is easier to read.   Comments 2:  The case study is more reminiscent of a methods section, delving into a large amount of detail, which makes it hard to discern the description of the results. Or it seems that the paper is lacking in results.   Response 2: Thank you for your comments. We have separated the two parts to make the case study section more understandable.   Comments 3: Due to the aforementioned issues, the lack of appropriate results leads to the research topic and objectives being unclear.   Response 3: This part has been revised.   In addition, there are many detailed issues   Comments 4: Figure reference issues. For example, on 3.1 and 3.7, “(see)”.   Response 4: Thank you for your comments. We have inserted the correct references.   Comments 5: Abbreviation issues. The digital elevation model has already been abbreviated in the previous text, so there is no need to display its full name again, for example, on 3.3.   Response 5: We have eliminated repetitions.   Comments 6: Line break issues. For example, on 3.4 the second paragraph, on page 16 the second paragraph, on 3.7 the third paragraph.   Response 6: We have restored.   Comments 7: Initial capitalization issue. The “area” on 3.5 at the beginning of the second paragraph is not capitalized.   Response 7: We have corrected.   Comments 8: Figures and Visuals. The figures are detailed and informative but could benefit from higher resolution for enhanced readability, for example, Figure 2, 4. Some maps lack clear legends or annotations, making it difficult for readers to interpret key features, for example, lack of compass in Figure 4, lack of legends,scale, compass, latitude and longitude grid in Figure 6.   Response 8: We regenerated the figures with higher resolution.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have addressed all comments and improved the manuscript.