Next Article in Journal
Not All Disasters Are Created Equal: An Evaluation of Water Issues in Fire and Hurricane Media Coverage in the United States
Previous Article in Journal
Optimization of Magnetic Nanoparticles Draw Solution for High Water Flux in Forward Osmosis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 13
Issue 24
10.3390/w13243654
Review Report
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
Article
Peer-Review Record

Construction and Application of Reservoir Flood Control Operation Rules Using the Decision Tree Algorithm

Water 2021, 13(24), 3654; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13243654
by Yanfang Diao 1, Chengmin Wang 2, Hao Wang 1 and Yanli Liu 3,4,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Water 2021, 13(24), 3654; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13243654
Submission received: 18 November 2021 / Revised: 15 December 2021 / Accepted: 15 December 2021 / Published: 20 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Section New Sensors, New Technologies and Machine Learning in Water Sciences)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors did a good job of reviewing literature about reservoir operation rules and schemes. This complex computational arena is challenging due to so many different configurations, weather conditions, and operating scenarios, among other causes. The paper offers a good contribution with the literature review, but the development of the DT-based control algorithm is not very convincing. Reasons are that the arguments are focused mainly on the mathematics of the algorithm development and the presentation of the application and case study seems weak.  The conclusions are particularly weak.  The data set for training seems fairly good, but the testing on only two floods is disappointing.  Table 4, which shows data for conventional approaches, seems sketchy.

My conclusion is that the paper can be published on the basis of offering a novel proposal and continued good literature review. The paper would be much better if some explanations of the limited testing in comparison with conventional methods are presented and if the conclusions are strengthened.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is scientifically sound and can be published after minor revisions.

Page 2, Line 40: Did you not have more recent data than 2011?

Page 3, Lines 116-121: These can be deleted.

Figures 4 and 5: Use different line patterns.

Conclusions: Add an introduction to this section, and then present the results. Also, I recommend adding some text regarding future research recommendations.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop