A Review of Research Methods and Evolution Mechanisms of Landslide-Induced Tsunamis
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
I must appreciate you for taking a rejuvenating, renegade topic of research for writing a paper, however I must provide some comments for improvements, please take it positively, refresh your article and resubmit for evaluation.
Home and abroad is not a right word for a scientific paper, change it appropriately.
Line 30 Give citation, I am not seeing much literature related to this.
Line 31 give citation
Line 41 check whether this is what author wish to convey, I think the line is wrong
Line 49: research methods based on landslide surge: Is this correct?
Why section number starts from 0 and then proceeding, start from 1. Introduction
Table 1 does not convey much severity due to landslide surge, its trivial, I feel authors exaggerate the condition or not able to provide citations duly
Line 73: IS monograph a correct word? or misrepresentation, please check
Line 78: What is fluid mechanics?
I strongly suggest reforming the section 1 it does not indicates whether this is a research or review article, neither confirms what a reader can expect, it ends abruptly, poor writing in this section is clearly visible.
In section 2 grammar is terribly tossed, it is not conveying proper meaning, strongly I suggest to check everything, make connecting lines and convert into readable segment. Take an example Line 408: author considering, is it past tense or future tense, if its future tense, why its added in this work? Similar confusion exists in many places of section 2, no connection between lines, its like information segment with no interpretation.
Line 308 - 327 if you read it is just collection of information, authors can write some content with continuity, a congruent content with this information which is readable.
I suggest providing or classifying section with sub headings and classifying different authors work in every section, this will give more readability, try if possible.
Same in section 3,4 and also in 5 this article does not seems to be a review paper, neither a research paper but only a collection of literature hence I strongly suggest authors to revise content, add connecting lines, convey what they understood, what a reader can understand and resubmit.
Section 5 title and content is not matching
There is no conclusion or any ending section or even concluding statements to end the article, I feel the article is written urgently and provides as collection of information.
Line 693: Is this a line to be added in conclusion, please check.
Similarly, if the article is revised with good connectivity, added transition, it may be a good article
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript “Review of landslide surge research”. I think the manuscript needs a lot of improvement before it can be published. In some places it is unintelligible or difficult to read. Carefully recheck the arrangement of chapters and paragraphs. Some have the same title
INTRODUCTION
The chapter number is 1, not 0. The introduction lacks recent and adequate literature, problem statement/gap, the nobility, objective, and significance of the paper.
Landslide surge cases
1.1 Classification of landslide surge; 1.2 Classification of landslide surge
You named the paragraphs with the same title. please correct
Landslide surge research methods
You write only of numerical analytical methods. There are many other methods of analysis and research such as geomorphological, geophysical geological analyses, monitoring. It is evident that you have only studied the numerical analysis in depth. This is the strong point of your work. Also highlight this aspect in the title and in the abstract.
REFERENCES
Check all the references carefully. Many don't match. The reference list has no consistency. Please integrate.
REFERENCES
Check all the references carefully. Many don't match. The reference list has no consistency. Please integrate.
GENERAL COMMENTS
The work is a good contribution on the analysis of landslide surges with numerical methods. The geological and geomorphological aspects are completely neglected. I would recommend highlighting this in the title and abstract as well. I believe the work is acceptable for publication but needs careful revision in form. In some parts it is difficult to read.
I wish you good work!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
A review of research methods and evolution mechanisms of 2 landslides induced tsunami Review of landslide surge research is this the title or author forget to change something? it is wrong, red color marked sentence is ok
Otherwise article is fine, proceed
Reviewer 2 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript “A review of research methods and evolution mechanisms of landslides induced tsunami”. I consider the title more appropriate to the review. Based on the changes made, the work is complete. I believe that now the work is a good contribution about the topic. I recommend publication in this form.
