Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Overview

Authors of this manuscript have presented a study related to the flood frequency analysis on eleven different locations by applying various probability distributions. The authors employed ten probability distributions using L-Moments method for estimating parameters on eleven different locations to find out the best-fit distribution for modelling hydrological quantiles corresponding to right-tail events.  They concluded that the approach that approach applied in this study would result in a fundamental improvement of water resource management in Pakistan due to the dearth of any such studies. The topic is interesting, an important issue and generally well written.

 

The manuscript is technically correct. However, there are still some occasional grammar errors through the manuscript especially the article ‘’the’’ is missing in many places, please make a spellchecking and improve the English. Although the manuscript has a clear and state of the art Introduction, the Methodology can be repeatable of other case study and easy to implement. The reviewer recommends presenting the methodology applied in this study through a flowchart.

 

The results and discussion section needs further improvement, compare your findings with the other author's findings. Therefore, the reviewer recommends to further improve the manuscript before accepting it for publication. Please provide more deep discussion about your results. Please clearly state the novelty of this work.

Definitely, after the authors make respective correction and improvement, the manuscript deserves to be published in Water journal.

 

 

Specific Comments   

The      abstract needs some improvement does not have a clear      structure.

In      many places’ articles ‘’the’’, ‘’a’’, ‘’an’’ is missing, please check and      correct.

Please      cite the following paper in line 43:

Selenica, A., Kuriqi, A., &      Ardicioglu, M. (2013, July). Risk assessment from floodings in the rivers      of Albania. International Balkans Conference on Challenges of Civil      Engineering.

Kuriqi, A., & Ardiçlioǧlu, M. (2018). Investigation of hydraulic regime at middle part of the Loire River in context of floods and low flow events. Pollack Periodica, 13(1), 145-156.

 

Please      cite the following paper between line      87-95:

Wang, Y., Liu, R., Guo, L., Tian, J.,      Zhang, X., Ding, L., ... & Shang, Y. (2017). Forecasting and providing      warnings of flash floods for ungauged mountainous areas based on a      distributed hydrological model. Water, 9(10), 776.

Rojas, O., Mardones, M., Rojas, C., Martínez, C., & Flores, L. (2017). Urban growth and flood disasters in the coastal river basin of south-central Chile (1943–2011). Sustainability, 9(2), 195.

 

Please      consider presenting the methodology applied in this work through a flowchart;      it will be much easier to understand from the readers.

Please      avoid using a generic statement like      one in line 33-35.

The first paragraph of the results section it sounds like a description      of the methodology. Please consider      removing that paragraph and go directly to your      findings.

Please      explain why most of the distribution in most of the study cases reveals P      value >0.05?

Figure      3, 4, 5 authors have to present a      legend showing elements of the box plots (25%, 75%, median ..)

Discussion Section is barely a week; please improve it      by comparing your findings with the other authors findings.

Please      check the references, some of them are not according to the journal      guideline, especially the abbreviation of the journals name.

 

Concluding      Remarks

The work presented in this manuscript is an interesting topic, it needs some more efforts to improve it further. Reviewer recommend minor revision of this manuscript and publishing it only after specific improvement of the current version are made.

Author Response

Please find the file in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract is too long and include information that is more appropriate for the introduction. You have to shorten this part and give the highlighted point of scope and methodology and briefly present the results and the added value/novelty. The English must be surely checked again by a native speaker because in some parts it is very difficult to understand the meaning. Also never use in a scientific paper the expression we have carried out....(line 17). Better to say was carried out. Finally, the discussion is pure. You have to add references and compare your results with similar studies and provide differences and similarities.

Author Response

Please see the file in attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf