Integrated Soundness Assessment of Agricultural Reservoirs Based on Water Quantity and Quality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Article review – Water - 2422645

“Integrated Soundness Assessment of Agricultural Reservoirs Based on Water Quantity and Quality” 

Remarks:

Line 13: “Comprehensive assessment of rivers has been reported in the previous literature” - This phrase is superfluous in Abstract, especially since there is no link to the publication.  I suggest deleting it.

Line 14: “however, comprehensive assessment studies on agricultural reservoirs have not been conducted yet”. -

I propose to replace this phrase with: “For the first time, the results of a comprehensive assessment studies on agricultural reservoirs in Korea were obtained”.

Line 21: Check if this term is correct for use in this sentence.

Line 21, 22: Please, specify which reservoirs you had in mind.

Line 34-37: Which structures regulate each of the industries you are named.

Line 38: Add the link to the publication of the document.

Line 46, 49, 158: Add a space between the word and the bracket.

Line 67: It is better to name the section: Literature review.

Line 122: Change the dot colour.

Line 136: The full names objects represented by abbreviations are required.

Line 154: Leave only a reference to the literature.

Line 155, 191, 350: Add space below.

Line 203-205: Pay attention to paragraph indentations.

 In the abstract, it is necessary to present the results on the main criteria for assessing the quality and quantity of water.

It is necessary either to reflect the information on organic carbon in the text of the article in more detail (this information is indicated in the abstract), or to rewrite the abstract according to the results obtained and the conclusions drawn.

 Conclusion:

The article is recommended for publication in the declared journal with corrections indicated by the reviewer.

All remarks are indicated by notes in the Manuscript.

 

It would be good to check the text of the manuscript to a native English or professional English. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: Line 13: “Comprehensive assessment of rivers has been reported in the previous literature” - This phrase is superfluous in the Abstract, especially since there is no link to the publication.  I suggest deleting it.

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have deleted this sentence

Point 2: Line 14: “However, comprehensive assessment studies on agricultural reservoirs have not been conducted yet”. - I propose to replace this phrase with: “For the first time, the results of a comprehensive assessment study on agricultural reservoirs in Korea were obtained”.

Response 2: We agree with the reviewer’s comment. We have replaced the phrase as suggested by the reviewer.

Point 3: Line 21: Check if this term is correct for use in this sentence.

Response 3:  We have rewritten this sentence

Point 4: Line 21, 22: Please, specify which reservoirs you had in mind.

Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. We have mentioned the names of the reservoirs just to make it clear.

Point 5: Line 34-37: Which structures regulate each of the industries you are named

Response 5: We have mentioned the names of the institutions and their related work to manage the rivers. Each institution has a different purpose for managing the rivers. Therefore, we have modified the sentence in the revised manuscript.  

Point 6: Line 38: Add the link to the publication of the document.

Response 6: The link to the publication has been added to the revised manuscript.  

Point 7: Line 46, 49, 158: Add a space between the word and the bracket.

Response 7: We have added space in brackets as mentioned by the reviewer.

Point 8: Line 67: It is better to name the section: Literature Review.

Response 8: Thanks for your suggestion. We have replaced the materials and methods with the literature review.

Point 9: Line 67: Line 122: Change the dot color..

Response 9: Thanks for your suggestion. We have changed the color of the dots in the revised manuscript.

Point 10: Line 136: The full names of objects represented by abbreviations are required.

Response 10: We have added the full names with the abbreviation provided in the brackets.

Point 11: Line 154: Leave only a reference to the literature.

Response 11: We have revised the sentence while leaving only the reference. Thank you for your suggestion.

Point 12: Line 155, 191, 350: Add space below.

Response 12: The space has been added to the standard format of the water journal.

Point 13: Line 203-205: Pay attention to paragraph indentations.

Response 13: We have reviewed the formate. Paragraph indentations have been added in the revised manuscript.

Point 14: In the abstract, it is necessary to present the results on the main criteria for assessing the quality and quantity of water.

It is necessary either to reflect the information on organic carbon in the text of the article in more detail (this information is indicated in the abstract), or to rewrite the abstract according to the results obtained and the conclusions drawn.

Response 14: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the abstract, considering the conclusions. We agree with the reviewer that mentioning organic carbon only in the abstract is a little confusing, so we preferred to match the results, conclusion, and abstract.

 

Point 15: It would be good to check the text of the manuscript to native English or professional English.

Response 15: The manuscript has been reviewed by native English speakers and basic grammar mistakes and spelling mistakes have been removed in the revised manuscript.

Lastly, we would like to thank the reviewer for giving his precious time for reviewing this article. We did our best to improve our article in the light of comments given by the reviewer. Again thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is scientifically sound and was well written, and is acceptable for publication after minor revision in English language.

The quality of English language of this manuscript is acceptable after minor revision. Here are a few edits suggested by the reviewer

1. Line 52, change to "...combined impact of water quantity and quality."

2. Lines 157-158, change to "Factor analysis deals with the correlations between different variables to describe the common dimension that forms the basis of those variables[11]."

3. Lines 161-162, change to "...do not know the underlying factors."

4. Lines 162-163, delete "that explain a major part of the variables"

5. Lines 164-170, change to "Factor analysis is a series of processes used to examine influences between originally selected indicators to verify whether they qualify as indicators for the comprehensive assessment. Basically, such analysis divides all factors into common and unique ones, and each factor affects indicator variables differently. The the size of a factor impact on an indicator variable is measured by the size of the covariance that affects the indicator variable, and is called factor loading. The amount of variance of each factor is called eigenvalue, the bigger the eigenvalue, the more important the factor. Generally, the"

6. Lines 176-178, change to "In this study, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) goodness-of-fit and Bartlett’s unit matrix [12] were used in the test of sphericity."

7. Lines 195-196, delete "The concept of internal consistency reliability is as follows;"

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: Line 52, change to "...combined impact of water quantity and quality."

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. The grammar mistake has been removed as suggested by the reviewer.

 

Point 2: 2. Lines 157-158, change to "Factor analysis deals with the correlations between different variables to describe the common dimension that forms the basis of those variables[11]."

Response 2: We agree with the reviewer’s comment. We have replaced the phrase as suggested by the reviewer.

 

Point 3: Lines 161-162, change to "...do not know the underlying factors."

Response 3: We agree with the reviewer, and we have rewritten it according to the reviewer’s suggestion.

 

Point 4: Lines 162-163, delete "that explain a major part of the variables"

Response 4: Thanks for your suggestion. We have deleted the text as mentioned by the reviewer.

 

Point 5: Lines 164-170, change to "Factor analysis is a series of processes used to examine influences between originally selected indicators to verify whether they qualify as indicators for the comprehensive assessment. Basically, such analysis divides all factors into common and unique ones, and each factor affects indicator variables differently. The size of a factor impact on an indicator variable is measured by the size of the covariance that affects the indicator variable and is called factor loading. The amount of variance of each factor is called eigenvalue, the bigger the eigenvalue, the more important the factor. Generally, the"

Response 5: We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion. We have revised the sentence as suggested by the reviewer.  

 

Point 6: Lines 176-178, change to "In this study, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) goodness-of-fit and Bartlett’s unit matrix [12] were used in the test of sphericity."

Response 6: The sentence has been modified as mentioned by the reviewer.

 

Point 7: Lines 195-196, delete "The concept of internal consistency reliability is as follows;"

Response 7: Thanks for your suggestion. We have deleted this sentence as mentioned by the reviewer.

 

We would like to thank to the reviewer for his/her valuable comment. This helped a lot in improving our manuscript. We tried our best to modify our manuscript in the light of comments mentioned in the manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf