A Design Parameter for Reef Beach Profiles—A Methodology Applied to Cadiz, Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall I think the Authors have put in significant effort to improve the paper and now has a much broader application/readership.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposes new design parameters of equilibrium beach profile with a reef. The survey was done in the beaches in Cadiz, Spain but the results are applicable to the other areas. The categorizing for beach profile with reef are unique and it is compared with results of different authors. Publication of the article is widely useful to coastal engineers.

The following revision is necessary;

• Figure 4 ; The explanation is missed.
• Line 243 ; Please add the simple explain of MSE.

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

Overall I was interested in the ideas based on your title and abstract. Admittedly though I did not find the paper contained much new information or insight. I found much information was missing to follow what you had done. Throughout I was left confused and unsure what was being presented and why. It seemed this was more a data fitting exercise then improving my understanding of beach profiles in reef environments. I'm not sure how this could be applied at new sites of interest given what is currently presented, whereas I have a clear idea on how to use the Dean profile and how ti can be adjusted to account for submerged reefs when looking at beach nourishment fill.

Please see the attached pdf for my detailed comments. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper describes a survey on beach topography along the Cadiz coast in SW Spain. The cross sections of beaches are expressed as typical biparabolic profiles with reefs. Each balanced equilibrium profile is defined in Professor Dean’s mathematical formulation. However, the coefficients included in the formulation are proposed in deferent ways according with the references. The authors proposes a new coefficient fitting to the field data in the Cadiz coast. The proposed parameters are applicable to the other fields.

The derived results are clear but the whole part of paper is very difficult to be understood. The following revised recommendation should be considered;

• In page 2, the reef profile is discussed. An image figure expressing the freeboard, wave height, slab width etc. is necessary.
• Figure 1: Position No. is too small. Please indicate the point which is employed in the analysis.
• Figure 2: This is the most important figure. The characters are too small. The reader can not recognize O2 and I2.
• Page 7: NMM is equal to MWL in Figure 4(B)? What is NMM?
• Figure 4: Please use the same range in X-axis.
• Page 8: There are too many shorten wards. ERBP=emergent reef biparabolic profile, and so on. SRBP & IRBP.. A table for explanation is kind to the reader.
• Figure 8: What is the plotted point in the figures?
• Figure 12: How about the present model? If not, please put the curve proposed in the present study.

In conclusion, the point “c” is mentioned. Where is point”c”?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have reviewed the second version of the paper and am rather disappointed with the authors efforts and to some degree wasting reviewers time. There are simple grammar errors in your updated manuscript that suggest you didn't do a good read of your edited version or care to put in a solid effort. Please don't waste my time.

 

While the authors addressed some of my point by point comments in the pdf (not all of them by the way as I find the same simple errors in your new manuscript) they did not address the major issues raised in the author feedback. ie:

"Overall I was interested in the ideas based on your title and abstract. Admittedly though I did not find the paper contained much new information or insight. I found much information was missing to follow what you had done. Throughout I was left confused and unsure what was being presented and why. It seemed this was more a data fitting exercise then improving my understanding of beach profiles in reef environments. I'm not sure how this could be applied at new sites of interest given what is currently presented, whereas I have a clear idea on how to use the Dean profile and how ti can be adjusted to account for submerged reefs when looking at beach nourishment fill."

This needs to be addressed. This will take more than a day or 2 to improve. 

As such, the paper is much in the same state as it was in v1 in my opinion and still doesn't provide much new information in a general sense of advancing my understanding on reef platforms and their associated profiles.

I think the authors can put in a lot more work to make a more impactful paper. Currently it's a local study.  

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf