The Revised Curve Number Rainfall–Runoff Methodology for an Improved Runoff Prediction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The manuscript presents revising the conventional curve number rainfall-runoff methodology for an improved runoff prediction, which is interesting. The subject addressed is within the scope of the journal.
2. However, the manuscript, in its present form, contains several weaknesses. Appropriate revisions to the following points should be undertaken in order to justify recommendation for publication.
3. Full names should be shown for all abbreviations in their first occurrence in texts. For example, SPSS in p.5, etc.
4. For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight major difficulties and challenges, and your original achievements to overcome them, in a clearer way in abstract and introduction.
5. It is shown in the reference list that the authors have several publications in this field. This raises some concerns regarding the potential overlap with their previous works. The authors should explicitly state the novel contribution of this work, the similarities, and the differences of this work with their previous publications.
6. p.1 - the SCS rainfall-runoff model with a new power correlation is adopted in this study. What are other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting this approach over others in this case? How will this affect the results? The authors should provide more details on this.
7. p.4 - Malaysia, China and Greece are adopted as case studies. What are the other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting these case studies over others in this case? How will this affect the results? More details should be furnished.
8. p.4 - historical records of 1964 to 2000 are taken. Why are more recent data not included in the study? Is there any difficulty in obtaining more recent data? Are there any changes to the situation in recent years? What are its effects on the result?
9. p.5 - the bootstrapping method is adopted in statistical analysis. What are other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting this method over others in this case? How will this affect the results? The authors should provide more details on this.
10. p.5 - Kolmogo rov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests are adopted for normality. What are the other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting these tests over others in this case? How will this affect the results? More details should be furnished.
11. p.5 - the Nash Sutcliffe Index is adopted to evaluate the performance and the predictive accuracy of the models. What are the other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting this evaluation metric over others in this case? How will this affect the results? More details should be furnished.
12. p.6 - “…The reason for determining the correlation equations was to observe the.…” More justification should be furnished on this issue.
13. p.9 - “…It is possible that the antilog correlation form was not used due to then technical limitations or the fundamental mathematical mistake was overlooked in the past.…” More justification should be furnished on this issue.
14. Some key parameters are not mentioned. The rationale on the choice of the particular set of parameters should be explained with more details. Have the authors experimented with other sets of values? What are the sensitivities of these parameters on the results?
15. Some assumptions are stated in various sections. Justifications should be provided on these assumptions. Evaluation on how they will affect the results should be made.
16. The discussion section in the present form is relatively weak and should be strengthened with more details and justifications.
17. Moreover, the manuscript could be substantially improved by relying and citing more on recent literature about contemporary real-life case studies of soft computing techniques on hydrologic prediction such as the following. Discussions about result comparison and/or incorporation of those concepts in your works are encouraged:
● Fu, M.L., et al., “Deep Learning Data-Intelligence Model Based on Adjusted Forecasting Window Scale: Application in Daily Streamflow Simulation IEEE ACCESS 8: 32632-32651 2020.
● Kaya, C.M., et al., “Predicting flood plain inundation for natural channels having no upstream gauged stations,” Journal of Water and Climate Change 10 (2): 360-372 2019.
● Mosavi, A., et al., “Flood Prediction Using Machine Learning Models: Literature Review,” Water 10 (11): article no. 1536 2018.
18. In the conclusion section, some recommendations are made for further investigation. Why they are not performed in this study? More justifications should be furnished on this.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback. Please see the attached file for our reply.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Revised title:
Revised the Conventional Curve Number Rainfall-Runoff For an Improved Runoff Prediction
Limitations of your study?
it seems discussion is too short and needs to elaborate
Also authors compared only Malaysia and Grece and China, they have not compared with USA , where originally this method was developed.
Also it seems they ignored other part of Malaysian states Sabha and Sarawak.
Poor error measures used in the study., i mean no one can says with single error. i.e R^2 with some dependency.
I suggest major revision before final acceptance.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback. Please see the attached file for our reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments
1. Longitude, latitude and scale are missing in Figure 2, so it is recommended to add them.
2. It is suggested that the conclusion be further condensed, and the current conclusion is slightly longer.
3. Under the background of climate change, surface runoff has changed significantly, and it will also be greatly affected by human activities. The author should strengthen the elaboration in the relevant part.
4. How to explain the rationality of the author's improved model on the scale of microtopography? The author should strengthen his elaboration.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback. Please see the attached file for our reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This is an interesting study with relevant implications in the field of hydrology modelling.
Some comments:
L31-33: This study demonstrates that most flood studies are conducted in lowland areas. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14010010
L54-55, L423-424: Shouldn't it just be "Runoff depth" and "Rainfall depth"?
L113-118: These sentences are repeating what has already been mentioned in the previous paragraphs.
L123-149: It would be better if these two sections were merged to stop repeating the same text and message.
L152: Change “from past two studies” to “from two previous studies”
L161-162: “China” is repeated.
L153-164: This text is difficult to read. Please rewrite this text in a clearer and more appropriate way.
L167: Figure 2. Please add points on the map of the specific locations where the hydrometric information was obtained.
L250: Correct symbol as superscript
L527: Table D1. According to the Nash Sutcliffe index, the new model is only slightly superior to the SCS model, which does not support statement 2 and 3 of the conclusions.
It would also be interesting to apply the Kling-Gupta index. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback. Please see the attached file for our reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised paper has addressed all my previous comments, and I suggest to ACCEPT the paper as it is now.
Reviewer 2 Report
Revision is appropriate
