Next Article in Journal
Correction: Kelly, L., et al. Quantification of Temporal Variations in Base Flow Index Using Sporadic River Data: Application to the Bua Catchment, Malawi. Water 2019, 11, 901
Previous Article in Journal
Analytical and Numerical Methods for a Preliminary Assessment of the Remediation Time of Pump and Treat Systems
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Multivariate Assessment of Low-Flow Hazards via Copulas: The Case Study of the Çoruh Basin (Turkey)

Water 2020, 12(10), 2848; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102848
by Fatih Tosunoğlu 1, Gianfausto Salvadori 2,* and Muhammet Yilmaz 1
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2020, 12(10), 2848; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12102848
Submission received: 26 August 2020 / Revised: 22 September 2020 / Accepted: 9 October 2020 / Published: 13 October 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Hydrology)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

See my comments on the file attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study utilized 7-day low flows from 6 gauge stations and coupled to three pairs. Then the Authors modeled bivariate probability distribution via copulas.

The submitted paper is well-written and very straight-forward in order; (1) marginal distribution, (2) copula model, (3) joint return period.

However, The Authors need to emphasize the novelty of the paper more because it is obvious that the lower basins are at great risk in drought. In the result and conclusion chapter, there is no quantitative description of the results.

 

From Line 27 ~ : citation style should be like [1], [2], ...[#]

Lines 150, 234: recommend not to use the word 'much'. The authors don't have to make readers feel like it is not quantitative. Readers will know the Authors intent without that word.

Figures 6, 7, 11, 12, 13: I don't know what happened here but figure labels do not appear appropriately. It is hard to review without those numbers. please check the converted PDF file and figures again.

Lines 341 ~ 358, 360 ~ 373: Recommend to describe results from quantitative perspectives. It is not required to describe all the results the authors made but the submitted paper has no quantitative description at the end of the results and conclusion.

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved a lot.

Back to TopTop