Next Article in Journal
Water Quality Prediction of the Yamuna River in India Using Hybrid Neuro-Fuzzy Models
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparative Analysis of Tree-Based Ensemble Learning Algorithms for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping: A Case Study in Rize, Turkey
Previous Article in Journal
Circulatory Pathways in the Water and Wastewater Sector in the Latin American Region
Previous Article in Special Issue
Discriminant Analysis of Water Inrush Sources in the Weibei Coalfield, Shaanxi Province, China
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Selected Worldwide Cases of Land Subsidence Due to Groundwater Withdrawal

Water 2023, 15(6), 1094; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15061094
by Ploutarchos Tzampoglou 1,*, Ioanna Ilia 2,*, Konstantinos Karalis 3, Paraskevas Tsangaratos 2, Xia Zhao 4 and Wei Chen 4
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Reviewer 4:
Water 2023, 15(6), 1094; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15061094
Submission received: 2 February 2023 / Revised: 27 February 2023 / Accepted: 7 March 2023 / Published: 13 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Risk Analysis in Landslides and Groundwater-Related Hazards)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have shown the review of "Selected worldwide cases of land subsidence due to ground water withdrawal". The review report generated is very sound and effective. A very good number of literature papers have shown. In order to enhance the scope of the manuscript, the following points could be considered.

1.The abstract needs to be reframed and must consider the following points

a) statement of the problem your research addresses

b) What are the research gaps

c) Why is it important to address these questions

d) the significance or implications of your findings

2. Introduction section could be improved by incorporating more literature part. Generally, it may include four paragraphs, a brief overview, literature, the research gap and the objectives of the study. Currently, it is very concisely combined together.

3.Define the objectives as “The major objectives of the study included (a)…; (b)….”  In the last paragraph of the Introduction.

4.The table 1 can be more enhanced/elaborated e.g data set used, drawbacks/gaps etc.

5. The Concluding remarks must be reframed by showing future scope of the study

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Hello. I thank the authors for their efforts in collecting information.

I think the presented paper is a scientific report and has not any novelty or new scientific results. I do not recommend publishing this form of article.

therefore I want to reject it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see the attached file herein.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

 

Comments:

0. Moderate revision. 1. The novelty of this study should be inserted in the text clearly. 2. The advantages and disadvantages of this study should be investigated. 3. The “discussion” section of the manuscript can be strengthened and supported with some papers related to the literature.      

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop