A Systematic Review on Flood Early Warning and Response System (FEWRS): A Deep Review and Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, I have read your second revision, and I noticed you improved your manuscript by (better) embedding your knowledge on Early Warning Systems in the context of both disaster (information) information management and innovation management studies. Studies into Information Systems (models of IS) can indeed serve as the linking pin to bring those schools of thoughts together. I still believe the section 3.2 in particular can be a bit less descriptive, and instead of just 'listing' the various models, you could have tried to integrate them into one argument (e.g. by giving the underlying assumptions, and the compare them), but since you now link the IS literature much better to the EWS literature, it makes sense to me. I think this way you make a valuable contribution to the literature. 

Author Response

Point 1: Dear authors, I have read your second revision, and I noticed you improved your manuscript by (better) embedding your knowledge on Early Warning Systems in the context of both disaster (information) information management and innovation management studies. Studies into Information Systems (models of IS) can indeed serve as the linking pin to bring those schools of thoughts together. I still believe the section 3.2 in particular can be a bit less descriptive, and instead of just 'listing' the various models, you could have tried to integrate them into one argument (e.g. by giving the underlying assumptions, and the compare them), but since you now link the IS literature much better to the EWS literature, it makes sense to me. I think this way you make a valuable contribution to the literature. 

Response 1:

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your valuable comment and assessed.

Hopefully, the paper is has made enough and clearly changed. We appreciate your time, and you're schedule to review this paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The author has made a good job to rewrite all paragraph that I did require before. There is no duplicate. 

The organize of this paper still like a a mess. You must follow the format and re-arranged.

There are some minor mistakes need to revise:

In the Chapter 1: Line 159: Why Figure 4 is mentioned before Figure 1, and Figure 2 (Chapter 2)? You have to re-organize that. 

In the Figure 3: Is there any threshold for early warning system? 

There are still many minor mistake of format, You have follow Journal's format strictly.

Line 569, Line 759, 767: Wrong format.

Delete All empty Line 626, Line 655, 825..... check through the paper!!!

Line 628 and 696: different format, check through the paper for First Line!!!

Part of 3.2.8: Wrong format

The discussion is quite long, summarize that.

Author Response

Point 1: Dear authors,

The author has made a good job to rewrite all paragraph that I did require before. There is no duplicate.

The organize of this paper still like as a mess. You must follow the format and re-arranged.

There are some minor mistakes need to revise:

In the Chapter 1: Line 159: Why Figure 4 is mentioned before Figure 1, and Figure 2 (Chapter 2)? You have to re-organize that.

Response 1:

Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable comment.

We apologize for our mistaken. We have revised it.

Point 2: In the Figure 3: Is there any threshold for early warning system? 

Response 2:

Dear reviewer, yes, the FEWRS has an fourfactor which is been shown in Figure 4 (Page 8) Line 255.

Hopefully, the explanation is enough and valuable.

Point 3: There are still many minor mistakes of format, you have follow Journal's format strictly.

Line 569, Line 759, 767: Wrong format.

Delete All empty Line 626, Line 655, 825.... check through the paper!!!

Line 628 and 696: different format, check through the paper for First Line!!!

Part of 3.2.8: Wrong format.

Response 3:

Dear reviewer,

We apologize for our error. We have fixed it all the error and check all the Journal’s format.

Point 4: The discussion is quite long, summarize that.

Response 4:

Dear reviewer,

We have summarized the Discussion. Hopefully, it is enough and valuable. 

We appreciate your time, and you're schedule to review this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript addresses an interesting and important issue: it aims to study early warning systems (in the context of flooding; FEWS) from the perspective of the information systems and innovation literature. I agree with the authors that the field of disaster studies, in which FEWS are important instruments can profit from the insight on the success or failure of innovations (e.g. user-friendliness, diffusion, acceptance, expectations, etc.). I also think the authors should be praised in their attempt to integrate large bodies of literature. At the same time, however, this had unfortunately lead to a lack of focus. The lack of focus is already visible right from the start: the first section is on information systems (IS) with no reference to hazards, disasters or early waring systems - suggesting the main focus of the article is indeed on IS, but then the second section introduces flood and disaster risk. The term 'furthermore' used by the authors that it build on an earlier argument, but instead they introduce a complete new topic. The reader then starts to wonder: how are the two related? Later on in the introduction the authors indeed try to relate IS issues with EWS, and they suggest a systematic literature review to deepen our understanding on how these two are related.

But then, in the methods section it becomes clear that they conducted a literature review on IS and not on EWS and/or on IS in the context of EWS. Interesting enough, section 3 starts with an (informative) description of what EWS entails, but the reader starts to wonder: on the basis of what did the authors select the literature on EWS (clearly not on the basis of a systematic literature review). The figure 3 makes sense, but it doesn't function as a framework for the analysis of EWS as IS, or at least - towards the end of the article - critically discuss the IS literature. Instead, the authors continue with an overview of well-known frameworks in the field of IS and/or innovation studies (including diffusion theories, perception/behavior theories and contextual theories). Two questions remain: how can the IS theories be related to each other, what do they tell, how do they add up (to an analytical framework or taxonomy)? And next, what are the lessons to be learned from the IS literature for the design, implementation and use of FEWS?

The authors provide a good overview of existing theoretical frameworks on IS, but since they don't start to integrate the frameworks they don't provide much new information. Secondly, they seem to be knowledgeable when it comes to disaster management, but they don't really take the lessons learned from the IS literature when it comes to EWS.

My suggestion would be that the authors do a (second) literature review on how EWS are depicted as IS in the literature. Hence they need to combine search terms from the field of disaster studies/management and information systems/innovation studies. Only then they will be able to show how IS literature has been used to describe EWS, but more importantly, to define what are the gaps: what has the EWS literature to gain from the IS literature? In the current manuscript this is an unanswered question, and that is a missed opportunity, as the authors definitely proposed an interesting research agenda.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of this manuscript. Kindly check the word file to see the respond.

Regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The current study states that provides a systematic review of the most successful model of employment-related technical advancement for the purposes of flood disaster management in order to improve employees' performance. The authors made a satisfactory review but their result presents a lack of completeness for two main reasons: first, there are no evaluation metrics for their findings (i.e. how one can qualify a model as successfull ?) and second, they are not provide examples or scenarios that could verify their findings.

Even if the quality of the study is adequate i thing that the manuscript is not suitable for the publication since it falls outside the scope of the journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We have made all the required comments. 

Please check the new version of the manuscript.

Regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author, please check through the paper those mistakes and rewrite that before considering further steps.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

thank you for giving us the comments and revised. 

The required comments are done and can check the new version of the manuscript.

Regards,  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

after reading your revised manuscript, I noticed you made some minor changes. It improved the paper a bit, but my main concern still is: in the first part of the paper you introduce EWS as innovation. It is indeed an interesting field that has been research quite a bit, but still it can use a systematic review. You are right there. But I still don't see the link between that part of the paper and the second part where you list a number of well know innovation theories but with no links to EWS and/or an discussion in which you integrate the main lessons learned from the innovation studies in a comprehensive framework related to EWS. My qustion still is: what do we miss in the debate on EWS and innovations that you wnat to asnwer in the article, how does the review sort this out, and what are the lessons learned from the innovation literature that can be of help here? And next, I am curious if you came accross articles in the litertaure in which the link between EWS and innovation already has been made.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for your valuable comments.

Kindly check the attached file, the comments were made as shown in line 59 to 96. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors failed two satisfy my main questions regarding : a) the evaluation metrics for their findings (i.e. how one can qualify a model as successfull) and b) they are not provide examples or scenarios that could verify their findings.

therefore i cannot suggest the current manuscript to be published

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comment.

Kindly check the attached file.

The Discussion Section has been added as shown in line 510 to 525

Regards, 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

the author has answered and edited all of my previous requests. good job and good writing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments,

We do appreciate your suggestions to add value to the paper. 

Regards, 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, I appreciate that you added some insightful noted in the introduction on the diffusion of innovation. Rogers framework is well know, and I think it can be of interest for scholars who want to understand the diffusion of EWS at various stages (early adopters, followers, laggers). At the same time, I still don't see how you made the connection between this literature and what we know about EWS. The same is true for the main sections of the paper: as I indicated earlier, it reads as a summary of well known innovation approaches, whereas an integration of the ideas is missing. One cannot simply present a 'a la carte' model on innovation research for EWS, because it won't help the reader to get a sharper picture of the problems and posssible solutions. So, if you want to get this piece publised, you need to invest more in a proper argument and analysis. It is possible, but it requires more work. And it can be worth the effort, because, again, I think innovation studies and frameworks have someting interersting to offer for EWS scholars.

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors fail to satisfy the points that I raised. They provide only a general discussion of how one can evaluate a model as successful but they are not provide scenarios & examples for their findings.