Fractional Linear Reservoir Model as Elementary Hydrologic Response Function

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled “Fractional Linear Reservoir Model as Elementary Hydrologic Response Function” (Ref. sustainability- 2685968) has tried to simulate the response of the hydrological system in the rainfall-runoff process by developing the Fractional Linear Reservoir model. The selected topic is very important and useful from a practical point of view but the article needs major revision to be published in Water. My major and minor concerns are as follows:

Majors:

1-     Concerns about innovation participation. Innovation should be introduced in the introduction.

2-     The performance of the developed model is only done qualitatively. It is true that the qualitative comparison of two hydrographs is necessary, but not sufficient. It is necessary to check the quantitative performance (for example: RMSE and Bias) of the model.

3-     How do the authors justify the summary made about the results (343 and such 358) with only one rainfall-runoff event? It seems this is not enough to summarize the performance of the method.

 

Minors:

1-     How does Figure 3B help in understanding the outputs? Isn't it redundant?

2-     The quality of the figures is low. Especially the Axes and Legends.

3-     It is common to present the physical characteristics of the researched basin in section 4 (as a case study). In addition, the results should be presented in a separate title, not under the title of the case study.

4-     The contents given in the conclusion are actually a part of the results. It should be moved to the appropriate place and presented in the conclusion section of the summary (see the conclusion of several articles in Water).

Good luck!

Author Response

First of all, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to the distinguished reviewer for spending your precious time to review our manuscript. Your comments and advice are highly appreciated and they are definitely useful for us to revise our manuscript for producing a high quality journal. The followings summarize the actions/corrections have been made corresponding to the comments given by the distinguished reviewer. The corrected portions are highlighted in red color for the benefits of the reviewer to identify and verify the corrections. Please consider the attached file, in which note that the highlighted portions include the corrections as requested by other reviewers as well.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript propose a fractional linear reservoir model as the elementary response function of hydrologic systems in correspondence to a classical linear reservoir model, which has good innovation and research value.

Some suggestions for your reference:

(1) In the section "2 Theoretical Background", it is suggested to further explain the research background and motivation.

(2) The corner in front of D in formula (11) is marked 0, which seems to be very unusual, and it is suggested to supplement the explanation.

(3) The resolution of the figure is too low.

(4) The references need to be updated to supplement the relevant research in the past five years as much as possible, so as to highlight the cutting-edge and value of the research.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to the distinguished reviewer for spending your precious time to review our manuscript. Your comments and advice are highly appreciated and they are definitely useful for us to revise our manuscript for producing a high quality journal. The followings summarize the actions/corrections have been made corresponding to the comments given by the distinguished reviewer. The corrected portions are highlighted in red color for the benefits of the reviewer to identify and verify the corrections. Please consider the attached file, in which note that the highlighted portions include the corrections as requested by other reviewers as well.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your are dealing with a common hydrologic issue, a conceptual model for rainfall runoff modelling. The proposed new model is from a mathematical point of view interesting. However, I am wondering why you did not submit it to the MDPI sister journal "Hydrology".The whole paper is very "mathematical".

I would like you to discuss a bit better the issue of base flow in the example, since you raised this issue in 3.2 yourselves.

Please correct numbering and heading of the second table 1.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is fine, but I found some spelling errors, please double check.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to the distinguished reviewer for spending your precious time to review our manuscript. Your comments and advice are highly appreciated and they are definitely useful for us to revise our manuscript for producing a high quality journal. The followings summarize the actions/corrections have been made corresponding to the comments given by the distinguished reviewer. The corrected portions are highlighted in red color for the benefits of the reviewer to identify and verify the corrections. Please consider the attached file, in which note that the highlighted portions include the corrections as requested by other reviewers as well.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I don't have a single objection, so I recommend accepting this manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is excellent. It may be necessary to make stylistic and technical corrections.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to the distinguished reviewer for spending your precious time to review our manuscript. Your comments and advice are highly appreciated and they are definitely useful for us to revise our manuscript for producing a high quality journal. The followings summarize the actions/corrections have been made corresponding to the comments given by the distinguished reviewer. The corrected portions are highlighted in red color for the benefits of the reviewer to identify and verify the corrections. Please consider the attached file, in which note that the highlighted portions include the corrections as requested by other reviewers as well.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have given almost acceptable answers to my comments. The article is acceptable.