Improving the Quality of the Water Flowing over a Stepped Spillway in Open Canals by Increasing Its Degree of Aeration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article studies the oxygenation process of water flowing through overflows to improve its quality. Various shapes and arrangements of energy-dissipating elements on the spillway surface were analyzed to increase the dissolved oxygen content in the water. The research was carried out on 21 models of various shapes and dimensions to identify the most effective system.
The article presents a detailed description of experimental methods, including various models and multi-parameter analysis. This shows a comprehensive approach to the problem. The research results indicate specific overflow configurations that increase dissolved oxygen content, which is valuable information for engineers and designers of water systems.
Comments that should be considered when revising the manuscript:
1. It is recommended that the article undergoes thorough linguistic and stylistic correction. Professional text editing will improve its readability and understandability.
2. Adding charts, tables and diagrams that clearly present your research results will significantly increase the value of your article.
3. It is worth adding a more detailed literature review and discussing how this research's results fit into existing research.
4. Strengthening the article by adding a section on the study's limitations and suggestions for future research directions will be beneficial.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt is recommended that the article undergoes thorough linguistic and stylistic correction. Professional text editing will improve its readability and understandability.
Author Response
comment (1): It is recommended that the article undergoes thorough linguistic and stylistic correction. Professional text editing will improve its readability and understandability.
Response :
- Thank you very much for the vital comments.
- The article has been revised and checked by the following website and software: -
- Grammarly (https://app.grammarly.com/)
- Ginger (https://www.gingersoftware.com/grammarcheck)
QuillBot (https://quillbot.com/)
comment (2): Adding charts, tables and diagrams that clearly present your research results will significantly increase the value of your article.
Response : Ok it is done
comment (3): It is worth adding a more detailed literature review and discussing how this research's results fit into existing research.
Response : Ok it is done, and literature review is modified, and six recent research are added
comment (3): Strengthening the article by adding a section on the study's limitations and suggestions for future research directions will be beneficial.
Response : Ok it is done, and a new section is added for the future research directions in section 7
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author's manuscript analyses many shapes of dissipaters with different dimensions and arrangements on the back surface of the spillway to increase their efficiency in aerating the flow and upgrading its dissolved oxygen content.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript is clear and relevant to the field, and a gap in knowledge is identified.
The impersonal mood should be used in the Introduction. Abbreviations D.S, and U.S. (lines 85-86) should be explained in first time mentioned.
In line 138 two times used "PS-2196". A flow rate units must be unified - now used liter/sec (line 255) lit/sec, l/sec (lines 284, etc.), l/s (line 293)
Some typing mistakes are noticed.
The results and conclusions are actual and the scientific impact of the manuscript is not very high, because there is no comparison with the findings of other authors. All literature sources are older than 5 years - no recent publications are cited. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest possible context.
Future research directions may also be highlighted.
Author Response
Comment (1) : The manuscript is clear and relevant to the field, and a gap in knowledge is identified.
Response : Thank you very much for your positive comments
Comment (2) : The impersonal mood should be used in the Introduction. Abbreviations D.S, and U.S. (lines 85-86) should be explained in first time mentioned.
Response : Ok it is done
Comment (3) : In line 138 two times used "PS-2196". A flow rate units must be unified - now used liter/sec (line 255) lit/sec, l/sec (lines 284, etc.), l/s (line 293)
Response : Ok it is done
Comment (4) : Some typing mistakes are noticed.
Response :
- Ok it is done
- The article is revised and checked by the following website and software: -
- Grammarly (https://app.grammarly.com/)
- Ginger (https://www.gingersoftware.com/grammarcheck)
QuillBot (https://quillbot.com/)
Comment (5) : The results and conclusions are actual, and the scientific impact of the manuscript is not very high, because there is no comparison with the findings of other authors.
Response : Ok it is done in section 5.5
Comment (6) : All literature sources are older than 5 years - no recent publications are cited
Response : Ok it is done, and literature review is modified, and six recent research are added.
Comment (7) : The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest possible context
Response : Ok it is done.
Comment (8) : Future research directions may also be highlighted.
Response : Ok it is done, and a new section is added for the future research directions in section 7
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
