Dynamic Groundwater Contamination Vulnerability Assessment Techniques: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The authors should clearly state the novelty of the paper for which it deserves publication. Since many review papers have been published on groundwater vulnerability assessment in recent years, authors should include a few statements in the Introduction section as to what makes their study new or different.
2. The authors should rewrite the Introduction. It should be better structured so that unnecessary information on groundwater contamination and statistics is not included. Instead of using sub-sections 1.1, 1.2, …, the Introduction may be written in paragraph form.
3. The authors should follow the journal’s referencing style.
4. Inclusion and exclusion criteria in methodology may be better represented in the form of a table.
5. A comparative analysis of the vulnerability assessment methods may be presented instead of only listing them in Tables 1 - 4. Advantages/ disadvantages or limitations of the methods mentioned in the reviewed papers may be added.
6. The abstract should be modified to include the main findings of the review. The authors should carefully read the journal’s instructions while re-writing the abstract.
7. Conclusion to the review must be presented.
The language used is correct and readable. Only minor changes are required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is well written and is within the aims and scope of Water. My suggestion is acceptance with considering the suggestions given in attached file.
Good luck.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This review of the literature on the various methods for assessing the vulnerability of groundwater resources and the risks of contamination is very comprehensive and gives a fairly wide-ranging view of the different current approaches. As such, this work is of real scientific interest and deserves to be published.
However, there are some disparities between the different parts of the manuscript.
Emphasis is placed on chemical pollution, but little on bacteriological pollution, which is the key issue in many parts of the world. This aspect needs to be rebalanced.
It is excellent to distinguish between static approaches that do not take into account temporal variability and approaches that do. The various methods for assessing environmental vulnerability (DRASTIC, COP, etc.) are well introduced, presented and evaluated.
On the other hand, there is a degree of confusion in the presentation and evaluation of the advantages/limitations of modelling methods, geostatistics, artificial intelligence and the use of databases. This part of the literature review should be better presented and detailed, and the advantages/disadvantages better assessed. These very different approaches are mixed together here, which does not really give an idea of the contributions and limitations of these approaches. In fact, a number of recently-existing approaches are not included in this presentation.
The emphasis on the specific features of certain environments, such as karstic environments, is welcome.
To sum up, this work deserves to be completed or better structured in certain areas.
I am proposing publication after a major correction.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The modifications suggested have been incorporated appropriately.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors;
Thank you for addressing my comments. My suggestion is acceptance.
Best Regards;
