Probabilistic Evaluation and Filtering of Image Velocimetry Measurements
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The topic of the article is interesting and intelligible. The manuscript has certainly potential to improve. In my humble opinion, if the manuscript is thoroughly revised and reorganized, it can make a fine publication. To help improve the quality of this manuscript, I have added more comments bellow:
General Comments:
- Please change the word "study" in the sentences to "paper".
- All sentences containing "we", “he”, please reformulate those sentences.
- Please enter the appropriate SI unit of measurement next to the label. Check the full text.
- Correct the "References" section in accordance with the "Instructions for Authors".
Line-by-line comments:
L10 “We argue” -> Please rephrase the sentence.
L39 “cross section,” -> cross-section,
L39 "(see Figure 7b in their study)” -> delete
L46 “cross section” -> cross-section,
L46-47 “(see Fig. 10 in their study).” -> delete
L50 “(see Figure 10a in their study).” -> delete
L60 “45% to 15%,” -> 15% to 45%,
L91 The introductory text for " 2. Materials and Methods" is missing.
L93 “Free-LSPIV”->Can the mathematical formula of the algorithm, or the system of equations, be given?
L97 “cross section,” -> cross-section
L100 “cross section,” -> cross-section
L123 “cross section,” -> cross-section and please correct elsewhere in the text.
L124-125 “cross section,” -> cross-section and please correct elsewhere in the text.
L174 “discharge.” -> discharge:
L178 “or, if measurements are only at 0.6 of depth,” -> format
L186 Please write the mathematical formula for "" as separate in this case (7).
L194 “naïve” -> ?
L203 The introductory text for " 3. Results" is missing.
L436 “3.7. Discussion” -> It must be listed as a separate chapter, not as a subchapter.
L463 “(see Figure 5 in their study)” -> delete
Kind regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
A most useful analysis of flows in rivers from many parts of the world. The use of data from many countries has proven to be a very useful test of the Free-LSPLV parameters and algorithms which demonstrate the potential usefulness of these methods. So well worth publishing. A few specific comments: Abbreviations: The most commonly used abbreviations in this paper are in the introduction and so it was easy to refer back to them when reading through the methods sections: LSPIV, ADCP, IA.However, Monte Carlo is first mentioned in line 59 but without an MC abbreviation until line 83. I suggest not to use MC at all, as Monte Carlo is used only a few times in the paper sometimes as MC (line 462) and sometimes as Monte Carlo (eg lines 497, 507). I must say MC reminds me of other things so use Monte Carlo as the abbreviation saves little space.
Line 118: “... and the IA size (in pixels) were …..(30x30, 120x120, 60x60) …..”
In some situations, the estimates were more accurate than in others and the discussion and summary in Table 1 gives plausible reasons for the variations in accuracy.
In lines 31-34 some uses of the image velocimetry are given. Perhaps in the last paragraph in lines 522-ff, there should be some discussion re the usefulness of these techniques in determining stream velocities compared to previous techniques. Overall, however, this work will provide a basis for further studies using these techniques in other situations.
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The subject of Probabilistic Evaluation And Filtering Of Image Velocimetry
Measurements is a very pertinent one, particularly in relation to the advanced application of remote sensing in cities. This manuscript, however, still lacks a clear research gap at the end of the Introduction. There can be found some studies which also deal with a similar topic, so authors should clearly draw the research gap at the end of the introduction section. If possible authors could draw a figure in the methodology section.
Other comments are as follows:
Lines 35 : various researchers; Reference?
Most of the papers write the reference like Li et al. (year), but in this study, the year is missing, so please check it.
Line 129 – what is "w" in equation 1?
Line 205-207 –Any reference for this information.
Line 238- 240–same as above.
What are the limitations of this study? Please explain in the conclusion section.
Best wishes.
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper has been improved according to the reviewer's suggestions. However, there are still some typos and errors which need the author's attention before publication.
1. Line 10, there must be a space between "study, and a"
2. I could not find all the references in the revised manuscript, please authors and journal editor please check these issues. it before sending it to the reviewer.
3. All figures numbers are missing.
4. Figs. 2,4,6 could not find the sign for 50%, please check.
Best wishes.
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
