Variation and Influencing Factors of Cloud Characteristics over Qinghai Lake from 2006 to 2019
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Frequency and vertical structure of cloud systems in Qinghai Lake area based on CloudSat satellite data
When it was checked for plagiarism, I have found a score of 28%. The authors surely have to reduce that to an acceptable level (20%). In addition, the score from a particular paper is a concern. This has 3% of similarity to your manuscript (Submitted to Universita degli Studi di Torino). Therefore, authors are advised to revise the paper to reduce the similarity score.
Title: unclear manuscript title. please rearrange the manuscript title to have a meaningful idea.
Abstract: what is the requirement of such research work. the authors have failed to address the research gap in the abstract. This is essential to the abstract. Therefore, the authors happy to revise the abstract properly.
Introduction: Authors need to showcase the novelty of the research work at least in the context of case study. Acceptable number of references can be found from the introduction.
Figure one has to be presented with the aid of the total map of the country. you can have it all clear map and then zoom up a particular area to showcase this study area.
Please state weather CloudSat satellite data freely available or weather the cloud set satellite data on from a commercial satellite.
What is the acceptability of figure 3;having linear graph temporal variation of clouds. You can see the low R2 value.
can you explain the R-squared value for Table 3? Again I have severe concern for Figure 9 as well how do you draw linear lines or linear variations?
Your contribution to the research work is very weak. I think that is missing in your manuscript. Therefore, please try to rearrange my script showcase your contribution and the novelty of your research work; novelty in the sense of a case study is fine for a journal; however, you haven't showcased the importance of your research and also the enhancement or novelty to the research work.
In addition, the methodology that you have used is not so clear; therefore, you have to have a flow chart to showcase what you have done inside the methodology so that it will give a clear view to the methodology.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 33: The author still does not include a reference.
Line 17: What do you mean the vertical cloud fraction? Please response to my previous question.
I urge the authors to proofread the English language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I think, authors have uploaded a wrong file for reviewers comments 2 or have not addressed all the comments which I have made.
My comments were
Title: unclear manuscript title. please rearrange the manuscript title to have a meaningful idea.
Abstract: what is the requirement of such research work. the authors have failed to address the research gap in the abstract. This is essential to the abstract. Therefore, the authors happy to revise the abstract properly.
Introduction: Authors need to showcase the novelty of the research work at least in the context of case study. Acceptable number of references can be found from the introduction.
Figure one has to be presented with the aid of the total map of the country. you can have it all clear map and then zoom up a particular area to showcase this study area.
Please state weather CloudSat satellite data freely available or weather the cloud set satellite data on from a commercial satellite.
What is the acceptability of figure 3;having linear graph temporal variation of clouds. You can see the low R2 value.
can you explain the R-squared value for Table 3? Again I have severe concern for Figure 9 as well how do you draw linear lines or linear variations?
Your contribution to the research work is very weak. I think that is missing in your manuscript. Therefore, please try to rearrange my script showcase your contribution and the novelty of your research work; novelty in the sense of a case study is fine for a journal; however, you haven't showcased the importance of your research and also the enhancement or novelty to the research work.
In addition, the methodology that you have used is not so clear; therefore, you have to have a flow chart to showcase what you have done inside the methodology so that it will give a clear view to the methodology.
I have attached what I can see as the responses.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors suggested that the plagiarism scores are based on the manuscript template. I do can see that.
Others are accepted.
Author Response
Some spelling and grammatical errors have been corrected in the manuscript.
