Review Reports

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. We would like to extend our sincere thanks to the editor and the anonymous reviewer for their time and effort in evaluating our manuscript. The constructive comments and valuable suggestions provided have contributed significantly to the improvement of the scientific quality and clarity of our study. We have carefully revised the manuscript in line with the feedback received and believe that these revisions have strengthened the overall contribution of the work. We truly appreciate your commitment to maintaining high academic standards and your support throughout the review process.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Must be improved

We revised the manuscript based on the reviewer’s evaluation

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Must be improved

Is the research design appropriate?

Must be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is interesting and follows the scope of Environmental and Earth Sciences Proceedings, due to long-term groundwater quality analysis. It seems to contribute to the literature showing non-published content regarding temporal and spatial analysis of groundwater. However, it still needs some improvement regarding:  

Comments: Verify authorship and affiliation formatting regarding Font, Alignment and Spacing.

Response: We appreciate this comment. The authorship and affiliation sections have been carefully reviewed and reformatted according to the journal’s style guide, ensuring consistency in font type, alignment, and spacing.

Comments: Abstract is missing to highlight the main objective of the investigation and a clear exposition of the methodology.

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. A revised abstract has been added, clearly summarizing the main research objective, methodological approach, and the key findings of the study to better guide the reader.

Comments: The Introduction must be extended. Please, provide a brief review/state-of-the-art on groundwater quality monitoring data, methods and novelty. Besides, the sustainable development impact of research based on governmental directives and programs must be added. Also, the research significance, where the main goal is highlighted, should be addressed.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback. The Introduction has been substantially expanded to include:

1. A concise state-of-the-art review of groundwater quality monitoring techniques and related studies.
2. A discussion on the study’s novelty and its alignment with sustainable development objectives and relevant governmental policies.
3. A clearer articulation of the research significance and main goals, emphasizing the study’s contribution to groundwater management and sustainability.

Comment: Please enlarge Figure 1 and clarify the legends.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. Figure 1 has been enlarged for better visibility, and the legends have been revised to improve clarity and readability.

Comments: The Results are well presented and interpreted; however, there is no discussion over it comparing it to other published works. Authors must add the heading Discussion where the literature has corroborated and/or contrasted with authors’ results, creating a scientific discussion. It will enrich your manuscript.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. This addition provides a deeper scientific context and highlights both consistencies and discrepancies with existing literature.

Comments: The manuscript would be better positioned with a stronger framing of the global relevance of the findings (linking to other arid regions) and a concise summary of the key land and water management practices that proved most effective over the observation period.

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s observation. The revised manuscript now includes a paragraph linking our results to similar challenges faced in other arid and semi-arid regions globally, as well as a concise synthesis of effective land and water management strategies identified in the study.

Comments: Be more explicit about the temporal density of groundwater sampling points, the statistical significance/limitations of trends and potential impacts of well sitting on spatial variability interpretations.

Response: This comment is appreciated. Additional details on the temporal resolution of groundwater sampling, statistical significance testing, and limitations associated with well distribution have been incorporated into the Methodology and Results sections to enhance transparency and reproducibility.

Comments: Clearly note any data gaps, limitations in hydrochemical analysis, or uncertainties associated with remote sensing land use classification.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a subsection discussing data gaps, analytical limitations, and uncertainties in remote sensing classification to ensure a more balanced and critical interpretation of the findings.

Comments: Provide a clearer distinction between the effects of socioeconomic factors (urbanization, population growth) and physical infrastructure improvements.

Response: We appreciate this observation. The Discussion section has been revised to better distinguish between socioeconomic drivers and infrastructure-related changes, allowing for a clearer understanding of their respective influences on groundwater quality.

Comments: Add references or brief summaries of groundwater protection policies and regulatory frameworks in place during the monitoring period. Consider offering a checklist or short policy framework to support sustainable groundwater and land management, based on study outcomes.

Response: In response, references to national and regional groundwater protection policies have been added. Additionally, a short policy-oriented framework has been proposed in the Conclusion section to guide sustainable groundwater and land management practices.

Comments: Data is very limited when only 2005, 2015 and 2025 are exposed, please consider inserting at least 2010 and 2020, even though yearly data would be better.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion. Unfortunately, additional data for the intermediate years (e.g., 2010 and 2020) are not currently available or accessible from the same reliable source used in our analysis. To ensure data consistency and comparability, we therefore restricted our analysis to the years 2005, 2015, and 2025, which represent the available benchmark datasets. We acknowledge this as a limitation.

Comments: Conclusions are well shown; besides, authors should highlight the limitations of the study and the future investigation based on what was presented.

Response: Thank you for this helpful recommendation. The Conclusion section has been expanded to include a concise summary of study limitations and recommendations for future research directions.

In summary, while the potential is strong, the data is limited, additionally, the manuscript would benefit from clearer language, methodological framing, and deeper discussion.

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive comments, which have significantly improved the quality, clarity, and depth of the manuscript. All revisions have been carefully incorporated and are highlighted in the revised version for ease of reference.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. We would like to extend our sincere thanks to the editor and the anonymous reviewer for their time and effort in evaluating our manuscript. The constructive comments and valuable suggestions provided have contributed significantly to the improvement of the scientific quality and clarity of our study. We have carefully revised the manuscript in line with the feedback received and believe that these revisions have strengthened the overall contribution of the work. We truly appreciate your commitment to maintaining high academic standards and your support throughout the review process.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

We revised the manuscript based on the reviewer’s evaluation

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors submitted article need minor revision before further processing. Comments are mentioned below.

Comments: Please consider adding 1–2 lines in the abstract to briefly describe the methodology used in the article.

Response: We appreciate this helpful suggestion. Two sentences have been added to the abstract to briefly summarize the methodological approach employed in the study, providing readers with a clearer understanding of how the research was conducted.

Comments: Remove keywords that are already part of the article title and replace them with alternative or complementary keywords.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The keywords have been revised by removing duplicates found in the title and replacing them with complementary terms that better reflect the study’s scope and content.

Comments: Revise Figure 1: label the subfigures as (a) and (b), and position them side by side for better comparison and clarity.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the layout of Figure 1. In response, we have updated the figure to include labels for the subfigures as (a) and (b), as requested. However, after considering the overall composition and space constraints of the manuscript, we have opted not to position the subfigures side by side. Instead, we have maintained their current arrangement to ensure optimal clarity and visual appeal within the context of the page layout. This revision has been reflected in the updated version of the manuscript (see Figure 1).

Comment: Revise Figure 2: include standard/reference values and add a horizontal line indicating the threshold from which the values increase.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment regarding Figure 2. However, as the figure focuses on presenting the number of groundwater samples exceeding WHO standards, it does not currently display the standard/reference values themselves. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the relationship between the data presented in the figure and the WHO guidelines in the accompanying text. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the data and its representation, we have not included a horizontal line to indicate the threshold in Figure 2.

Comments: Although the results have been discussed in the text, it would be beneficial to present them using a graph or table for improved readability and impact.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the helpful suggestion. While we agree that presenting the results visually could enhance readability and impact, we were unable to include additional graphs or tables due to the page limit restrictions imposed by the conference. Furthermore, due to the nature of the data, we were unable to share the raw data in the manuscript. However, we have made sure to clearly explain the key findings in the text, providing a detailed discussion of the results. We hope that the text presentation sufficiently conveys the essential information in a concise manner.

Comments: Additionally, could you please include a spatial variability map of the study area to enhance the spatial understanding of the findings?

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to include a spatial variability map. In response, we have updated Figure 1 to show the sampling points across the study area. This updated figure provides a clearer spatial representation of the data, which we believe enhances the spatial understanding of the findings. Unfortunately, due to page constraints, we were unable to include a more detailed spatial variability map. We trust that the updated figure meets the purpose of visualizing the sample distribution effectively.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. We would like to extend our sincere thanks to the editor and the anonymous reviewer for their time and effort in evaluating our manuscript. The constructive comments and valuable suggestions provided have contributed significantly to the improvement of the scientific quality and clarity of our study. We have carefully revised the manuscript in line with the feedback received and believe that these revisions have strengthened the overall contribution of the work. We truly appreciate your commitment to maintaining high academic standards and your support throughout the review process.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

We revised the manuscript based on the reviewer’s evaluation

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

Are the methods adequately described?

Must be improved

Are the results clearly presented?

Must be improved

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Must be improved

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments: If possible, we would like to see more tables (with values) and/or figures...
This textual work do not even allow to check if authors are correctly concluding their findings...

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to include more tables and figures to enhance the clarity of the findings. However, as this work is a conference paper, it is subject to strict page limits, which restrict the number of additional tables and figures we can include. Given these constraints, we have carefully selected the most relevant data and presented it through the existing tables and figures. We have also ensured that the key findings are clearly discussed in the text, which we believe now provides a thorough and coherent interpretation of the results. We trust that the revised manuscript effectively conveys our conclusions within the available space.

Comments: pg.4;sec. 3.2. Location-Based Variation Analysis in Water Quality
"...northern region (S1–S5; Çamlıdere, Karabayır, İkiağız, Vergili, Yardımcı)..." "...central region (S6–S13; Mutluca, Günbalı, Kısas, Konuklu, Hancağız, Uğurlu, Ozanlar, Keçikıran)..." "...southern region (S14–S20; Kızıldoruç, Yardımlı, Özlü, Olgunlar, Yaygılı, Bolat-
lar, Uğraklı)..." > places and regions not seen in Fig.1

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading. Figure 1 has been revised to include all mentioned sampling locations and regional boundaries (northern, central, and southern). The updated map now clearly displays each site (S1–S20) to facilitate spatial understanding and consistency between the text and the figure.

Comments: pg.5;Figure 2 - Number of groundwater samples exceeding WHO standards
> please change vertical axis scale to INTEGER (number of samples)

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. The vertical axis in Figure 2 has been modified to display integer values representing the number of samples, improving numerical accuracy and visual clarity.

Comment: pg.5;ln.3 - "...The graph and table above..."
> No table seen?
> without any tabulated results we can only relay on authors text without questioning nothing...

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the mention of a table in line 3 on page 5. We regret the confusion caused by this reference. Upon review, we realized that the table initially referenced in the manuscript was omitted in the final submission due to space limitations. As this work is a conference paper, it is subject to strict page limits, which prevented the inclusion of additional tables or figures. We understand the importance of providing tabulated results for clarity and transparency, and we have now ensured that the text thoroughly discusses and supports all conclusions. While we are unable to include additional tables or figures in the current version due to these constraints, we believe the manuscript still provides a clear and well-supported analysis.