Parameter Estimation for Some Probability Distributions Used in Hydrology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)
what is the difference between skewness and L skewness? The authors need to explain properly in the manuscript.
Please check equation 4 there are 4 equations in it.
The manuscript is well written
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
I have read the article and it can be concluded that it is not suitable for publishing in a Q2 indexed journal. There is a lack of rigor in the arguments as well as a case study in which the improvements are observed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The article represents a piece of science that deals with approximate relations and parameters that have great application in hydrological science and model calibration. However, I have some major concerns.
More elaboration in the abstract section about the application your new approximations in the two and three parameters frequently used in hydrology.
Rephrase the last sentences in the abstract (Lines 16-18)
The article assembly and structure do not follow scientific publications' technical and scientific roles. The author(s) has to rearrange the article to contain Methods, Results, and discussion or (Result and discussion). I do not see any methods represented. However, it is already well-written throughout the whole article. Where is your “Results and discussion” or “Results” and “discussion”??.
Line 65-66: Make a general argument not specified for Romania…
Line 70-78: PE3, GEV, W3………etc. Using the required citations, you can use a table to represent this paragraph reasonably.
In Figure 1, indicate in the figure caption or use color to illustrate the graphs (MOM, L-Moments) for which Y-axis.
Cite this article in line 52:
Eissa M.A., J.R de Dreuzy, B. Parker (2018). Integrative management of saltwater intrusion in poorly-constrained semi-arid coastal aquifer at Ras El-Hekma, Northwestern Coast, Egypt. Groundwater for Sustainable Development. Volume 6, Pages 57-70.
Figure 6. The same comment for Figure 1.
Figure 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 26, 29, 31 The same previous comment.
The manuscript includes 33 figures; it will never be acceptable. However, these figures are simple, so the author(s) has to combine the related figures using a, b, c, ….
Finally, the author(s) has to represent the main obtained results well, so the conclusion needs more clarification and elaboration.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Unfortunately I have to indicate that from my point of view the article is not publishableAuthor Response
The answer is the same one we gave before.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Required for all Figures:
Axes titles should be enlarged using a suitable font size. The resolution of the figures should be enhanced. Use, i.e. 1.5 for the width of the x and y axes, to enlarge the font size of the legend. Figures' captions should be more representative.
Author Response
Has been done.
We thank you for your observations, which made the article better.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper needs a total rewriting. The text is structured into too many small paragraphs.no el contribution of paper not clearly stated before th conclusion. The use of notation such as qgamma, qchisq, etc... is questionable and symbolic notation is preferred. The paper also lacks the appropriate background material and the reader is just cited papers and made to go look up and make the link themselves. Terms like Hosking approximation, approximation 1, 2, etc are never presented in the paper. I know papers aren't meant to spoon-feed, but important information should be stated.
Also section 2 lacks a proper introduction and some indentation issues can be found along the text.
Overall structure of the paper is repetitive.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
See the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
• The use of notation such as qgamma, qchisq, etc... is questionable and symbolic notation is preferred. 2
• The paper also lacks the appropriate background material and the reader is just cited papers and made to go look up and make the link themselves.
• Terms like Hosking approximation, approximation 1, 2, etc are never presented in the paper. I know papers aren't meant to spoon-feed, but important information should be stated.
The following points were not addressed to the satisfaction of the reviewer. Indeed, the first point was made worse. The explanations given in the cover letter were very vague.
I had suggested a major revision, but the revisions done were minor. Just adding a couple of paragraphs here and there. A lot of detail required in the paper is still missing and the reader is still expected to look for the missing links in other papers rather than having them explained in the paper.
As it stands, I do not think the current paper has the quality it requires to be in a journal.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
