Research Focuses and Evolution Trends of River Chief System: A Review of Papers Published from 2009 to 2022
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper provides insights into the evolving field of research and practice on the River Chief System (RCS), offering valuable knowledge for scholars and government policymakers. It highlights the need for international comparative studies to facilitate mutual learning and identify effective governance approaches globally. The emphasis on public participation as a research hotspot signifies the importance of involving the public in RCS implementation and advancing water ecological civilization construction. The paper emphasizes the necessity of thorough examination and refinement of the institutional design of RCS, including organizational structure, personnel selection, job responsibilities, performance evaluation, and training. It underscores the significance of considering regional characteristics and developing customized governance approaches with regional characteristics to effectively address challenges in different regions.
The paper is a systematic review of research papers on the River Chief System (RCS) published between 2009 and 2022. The review is based on papers written in English and Chinese, mapping key research points and identifying research trends in the RCS literature. The writing style is academic and objective, presenting a comprehensive understanding of the historical context, key research points, research trends, and challenges of RCS.
Note: The paper does not specifically mention the use of primary data or empirical studies. It is a review and synthesis of existing research papers on the River Chief System.
Comments:
1. The abstract could be more informative by explicitly stating the methodologies and key findings, as it serves as a roadmap to the document.
2. It is unclear how the author selected the papers for review. A more transparent articulation of the inclusion and exclusion criteria would lend more credence to the findings. A flow diagram will support this.
3. The findings of the reviewed papers can be synthesized into novel insights or frameworks.
4. The practical implications of the papers findings should be emphasized.
5. Enhance the depth of discussion concerning the evolution of RCS.
6. Include a section that outlines the policy implications and actionable recommendations.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English used in the manuscript is largely correct and readable, facilitating comprehension. However, a minor editorial review might enhance its linguistic quality further. he use of subject-specific terminology is observed, but the paper could benefit from a glossary or footnotes for less commonly known terms. This would make the paper more accessible to readers from interdisciplinary backgrounds.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
The authors would like to express our sincere appreciation for the invaluable suggestions and constructive comments provided by you during the review process. Your insights have played a pivotal role in shaping the revisions made to the manuscript.
We have thoroughly revised the manuscript, incorporating all of the suggestions. We believe that these revisions have significantly enhanced the quality of the manuscript, making it worthy of reconsideration. However, we remain prepared to make further revisions should the reviewers suggest additional improvements.
Please find the attachment for specific modifications made based on your revision suggestions. Thank you again for your time!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRemarks:
This article provides a comprehensive systematic review of research on the River Chief System (RCS) from 2009 to 2022, offering a solid foundation with definitions and historical context. It identifies key research areas, including governance logics, theoretical foundations, operating mechanisms, policy effects, and current challenges, while also highlighting emerging trends such as public participation, technology use, and related Chief Systems. Moreover, the article calls for international comparative studies and long-term mechanisms for RCS implementation, emphasizing the need for a more global perspective. The subject covered in the manuscript is suitable for the journal. The abstract is well written. The introduction section is processed at sufficient level. The materials and methods section is adequate. The MS is properly organized and clear. The article's organization and language are generally good. The article effectively discussed the research findings. Moreover, conclusions are supported by the results. The manuscript deserves to be published after minor revision. There are a few aspects that require further attention and clarification. Addressing the following mentioned points in the manuscript could enhance the clarity, impact, and overall quality of the research.
Minor revision:
l Please provide specific findings in the abstract.
l Line 10 replace reviewer by review.
l I invite them to highlight the novelty statement in their manuscript to show the readers that the current work brings a novel idea to the existing knowledge.
l Include objectives of the study in the introduction.
l No conclusions reached in your introduction. Authors are invited to conclude their introduction.
l Recheck the citations style in the text.
l In line 189 “Table 2 presents a list of summary information..” and line 190 “while Table 3 provides..” recheck the table numbers.
l In line 212 “Tables 4 and 5…” table 5 is missing.
l In line 221 “statistical results indicate a certain…” but no statistical analysis is present in the results section, it’s better to remove word statistical.
l Please add your future recommendations.
l Conclusion section is somewhat repetitive, too long, and could be more concise.
l line 635-640 is not the conclusion of the study.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
The authors would like to express our sincere appreciation for the invaluable suggestions and constructive comments provided by you during the review process. Your insights have played a pivotal role in shaping the revisions made to the manuscript. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript, incorporating all of the suggestions. We believe that these revisions have significantly enhanced the quality of the manuscript, making it worthy of reconsideration. However, we remain prepared to make further revisions should the reviewers suggest additional improvements.
Please find the attachment for specific modifications made based on your revision suggestions. Thank you again for your time!
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear respected editor
I have carefully reviewed this review. Hence, I suggest this review would be suitable for publication in your respected journal after minor revision. My comments are:
1: In the abstract section the first four lines are confused and need modification and the abstract should be informative by presenting both the quantitative and qualitative information.
2: Keywords need to be rewritten- short words and arranged alphabetically.
3. Tables 3 and 4 should be the same format as tables 1 and 2.
4. The conclusion part is confused and needs modification.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, The authors would like to express our sincere appreciation for the invaluable suggestions and constructive comments provided by you during the review process. Your insights have played a pivotal role in shaping the revisions made to the manuscript. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript, incorporating all of the suggestions. We believe that these revisions have significantly enhanced the quality of the manuscript, making it worthy of reconsideration. However, we remain prepared to make further revisions should the reviewers suggest additional improvements. Please find the attachment for specific modifications made based on your revision suggestions. Thank you again for your time!Author Response File: Author Response.docx
