Lake Changes during the Past Five Decades in Central East Asia: Links with Climate Change and Climate Future Forecasting
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Manuscript Number: water-1940258
The manuscript has some shortcomings which need to be improved prior to its publication. My recommendation is that the article needs Major Revisions before it can be considered for publication.
1. Abstract: The abstract is a bit generic. Please add some more information regarding your results, must be more quantitative.
2. Introduction is generalized. I would recommend following recent research articles to reconstruct with extensive literature review on this topic and mention why you have chosen this topic for study.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114107
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100599
3. Methodology section is weakly written. So, my suggestion is to reconstruct it.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06033-y
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2019.04.033
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02944-x
4. Author should discuss the discussion section by comparing the results with the other researches with justification.
5. In conclusion section, you have to mention the implications of your research and how it makes a footprint in scientific research. Try to incorporate your work to global interest how this research has worldwide importance. It will be interesting for the readers. Present conclusion is so simple, you have to improve it in a proper way.
6. Reference: Re-check the whole reference just to make sure you have added all the references that you cited in your manuscript and make it alphabetical order.
7. Apart from this the quality of the overall paper is very good. I prefer this article with acceptable with major modifications.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
First of all, we thank your comments of our manuscript (water-1940258). We have treated all comments and tried our best to modify our manuscript. Your comments and edits improved the manuscript greatly.
Below, please find our point-to-point responses to the comments (the comments are black and responses are blue with underline). Here is a simple response to your comments. For your convenience, changes to our revised manuscript are all visible clearly in the ‘marked file’.
- Abstract: The abstract is a bit generic. Please add some more information regarding your results, must be more quantitative.
- Introduction is generalized. I would recommend following recent research articles to reconstruct with extensive literature review on this topic and mention why you have chosen this topic for study.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2022.114107
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100599
Response 1&2: Thank you for your comments. We add more quantitative result information in Abstract. And according to the literature you provided, we reconstruct with extensive literature review on this topic and mention why we have chosen this topic for study.
- Methodology section is weakly written. So, my suggestion is to reconstruct it.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06033-y
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2019.04.033
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02944-x
Response: Thank you for your comments. For better correspond to the Results, we have combined the Data with Method. In addition, we integrate ‘predicting the relative importance of different factors on lake area change’ into the Discussion.
- Author should discuss the discussion section by comparing the results with the other researches with justification.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We compare the results with the other researches in Discussion, and they basically support our results.
- In conclusion section, you have to mention the implications of your research and how it makes a footprint in scientific research. Try to incorporate your work to global interest how this research has worldwide importance. It will be interesting for the readers. Present conclusion is so simple, you have to improve it in a proper way.
Response: We have improved the conclusion based on your suggestions.
- Reference: Re-check the whole reference just to make sure you have added all the references that you cited in your manuscript and make it alphabetical order.
Response: We have added all the references that we cited in our manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, you wrote a very interesting and very usefull paper covering large area and important topic(s). There are room for some improvements I suggested in the manuscript. I marked and commented everything in yellow.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
First of all, we thank your comments of our manuscript (water-1940258). We have treated all comments and tried our best to modify our manuscript. Your comments and edits improved the manuscript greatly.
We have modified details of your advised in Title, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Study region, data and method, Results, Discussion and all Figure. Below, we response some questions you mentioned (the comments are black and responses are blue with underline). For your convenience, changes to our revised manuscript are all visible clearly in the ‘marked file’.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript can be accepted in its present form
Author Response
Thank you very much for your recognition of our paper
