Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. There is not much novelty in the paper to warrant a publication of a journal article.

2. line 9 of "introduction" section, "..... published guidelines for optimal design to minimize the unwanted". what is the reason for this?

3. text formatting issue on bottom paragraph of page 7.

4. on page 8, the Green book was mentioned. Citation is needed as not all readers will understand what the green book is.

5. All equations and Figure references in text shows " Error! Reference source not found". This makes the article unreadable as the referenced equations and figures are not known.

6. in the Result section, what does Figures 3-8 represent? instead of just leaving it up to interpretations of readers, they should be clearly explained. Although attempts were made in line 4 in the results section, however author only mentioned "results for different number...." which is insufficient for readers to understand.

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have addressed the points you made.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting and different to most previous studies for that most previous study focus on curb inlet capacity for specific upstream catchment while this study focus on determing inlet spacing by fix road surface flow depth. There is one question I would like these authors to consider: why they only consider the road surface flow depth and neglect the curb inlet capacity? Detailed comments were marked in attached PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have addressed the points you made.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Review of “Impact of Slope Orientation on Inlet Spacing: Gutter Flow Analyses”

General to Authors:

Same sentences in the text should not be used in Abstract. It should be modified.

Some sentences in the manuscript are very long. They should be reduced, if possible.

Theoretical background is discussed in Introduction section. Recent studies must be included and introduced in Introduction section.

Local restrictions are emphasized; but it is not introduced in the study area.

Normal to flow direction may be considered instead of “perpendicular flow direction”.

What is the difference between this study and Cavdar and Uyumaz (2022)?

Reference citing in the text revealing as error should be checked throughout the manuscript.

Tables and figures are not referred in the text.

Why should Zr be kept constant within 4 mm?

May transverse/lateral slope be considered to define “cross slope” in the study?

Is Manning’s roughness coefficient dimensionless? It should be clarified.

It should be rephrased “The maximum value z can take is determined based on a couple of factors.”

Equations should be presented properly in the text.

Figure 1 should be modified to present all the variables in some equations. For instance, x1, QR, QW, QG or water film thickness should be illustrated in Fig. 1. It may be redrawn as a line figure.

What is A1 in page 7?

Figure 2 should be improved.

How did the authors consider discharge coefficient in gutter flow?

Is Table 6 adopted from this study? If not, please give reference.

Discussion and Conclusion section should be presented separately. Recent findings in the literature should be discussed. Future works should be given in Conclusion section.

The authors should follow the text format of the journal strictly.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. We have addressed the points you made.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors should pay more attention on the dimension of Manning's roughness coefficient (n). n is not dimensionless parameter. Although it is an empirical coefficient, it holds dimension. It should be corrected throughout the manuscript.  

Authors should also discuss the cost effectiveness of their results. 

Author Response

The changes are attached.

Best.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf