Evaluating the Effect of the Location and Design of Retention Ponds on Flooding in a Peri-Urban River Catchment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is not clear from the paper what its novelty and contribution to the scientific community are. The article presents the results of a study of which hundreds are produced every year all over the world. The conclusions that are formulated in the paper are contained in the standard programs for water engineering students in most universities in the world.
Some of the citations are unclear, eg. two references are cited as Birkinshaw et al. 2021.
Some of the self-citations are unnecessary, e.g. Krivtsov et al. 2022 on line 89, Krivtsov et al. 2020b on line 97, Birkinshaw et al. 2010 and Birkinshaw et al. 2021 on lines 135-136.
What is the abbreviation PBias on line 178?
Conclusion:
Since the article does not meet the aims of the journal Land, it has no scientific benefit, its content does not correspond to scientific works (it is a description of a common water management study), I am not proposing to rewrite the article, but to reject it outright.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for an exciting manuscript. I have a few comments concerning the model and language.
Line 125: Please discuss the model in detail and provide other required parameters considered. Also, discuss the software or programming language used for modeling.
Line 145: What do you mean by library values?
Line 147: What do you mean by “whereas the In the rest of the…”?
Lines 162-164: Please revise the sentence. It is hard to follow.
Line 175: Please include the citation for NSE and PBias.
Line 369: What do you mean by “the catchment the water as quickly as”?
Line 378: Please remove the “and” after flow.
Line 376: Please briefly explain why the location of a bigger pond is not as crucial as for smaller ponds? You have discussed what happens in the case of a bigger pond. It does not show why you made this conclusion and how?
The conclusion section does not include this study's limitations and future scope.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The work is not a new treatment of the problem, but the results obtained bring new scientific elements to the current knowledge.
Line 64 Enter geographic coordinates
Line 66 Characterization of the Braid Burn catchment area as steep and gentle is too general, please provide a brief characteristics of the terrain - gradients
line 74 Briefly explain why the catchment is prone to flooding.
line 102 Too little information on the way of feeding the designed two ponds.
line 114 A brief explanation is required of the concept of the selected two variants, design rainfall events.
Two figure captions are numbered 4
line 122 When designing storage reservoirs, their technical parameters and location, are closely related to the way they are fed. In this paper, major simplifications were applied, which can have a significant impact on the obtained model studies. The very analysis of the results is correct.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, thank you for all changes in the manuscript. I still have a problem with the auto citation of Krivtsov et al. 2020b (currently at line 113). I agree that a self-citation that frames an existing manuscript in previous research is not redundant. But really is the important contribution of paper by the Kravtsov et al. 2020b that "the outlet of the pond is to the north directly into the Braid Burn"? What additional value is provided by this information to readers?
Regards
reviewer
Author Response
As suggested by the reviewer we have removed the citation to Krivtsov et al. 2020b
