Decision Support Tool for the Optimal Sizing of Solar Irrigation Systems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.    The title the authors provided seems to be generic, so I would suggest they rephrase the article title to make it more scientifically appealing. Please develop a much more compelling title.

2.    Highlights must be included to meet the guidelines of the journal. They must consist of a short collection of bullet points that convey the core findings of the article.

3.    The research article abstracts must always be framed in an orderly manner, including a brief description of the work, materials, and methods, followed by a brief discussion of the results and discussion, and a complete abstract; however, the given abstract lacked an orderly description, so I request that the entire abstract be rewritten in an orderly manner.

4.    The keywords provided by the author are very general; the authors should provide scientifically appropriate keywords that were used in the manuscript.

5.    The nomenclature is incomplete, and the dimensions of each variable must be included in the nomenclature.

6.    The introduction is not written in sequential order, making comprehension difficult for readers; therefore, I recommend rewriting the introduction in sequential order.

7.    Try to maintain the workflow of the paper, especially during the transition between sections and subsections.

8.    The research gaps should be highlighted and the research scopes should be provided with comparative analysis.

9.    The authors must include Uncertainty data for their obtained values and provide a thorough explanation for their inclusion.

10. Results should be supported with more discussion of different scenarios of the source.

11. Redraft the Conclusion with numerical evidence to support your claim.

12. Proofread the entire manuscript to rectify some existing typos and grammatical errors.

13. Some quantitative results need to be given in the conclusion. The whole conclusion needs to be revised properly. The conclusion should be an objective summary of the most important findings in response to the specific research question or hypothesis. A good conclusion states the principal topic, key arguments and counterpoint, and might suggest future research. It is important to understand the methodological robustness of your study design and report your findings accordingly.

 

14. The main limitations of the study, as well as useful future research directions, should be discussed in the conclusion.

Author Response

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have thoroughly read the article. My decision is major revision. Kindly see the below comments and revise it:

 

1. Title of the article needs to be revised…

2. In the abstract of the article, objectives and problem definition written but needs to be revised for the understanding to readers too.

3. Add the more and relevant keywords in the article

4. First paragraph of the introduction section needs to be revised..last two lines meaning is not understanding in first paragraph of introduction section.

5. I found the lumpy references in the introduction section..for a good research article lumpy references must be lower

6. Figures 1 and 2 need to be visible properly.

7. See the table 1 properly

8. How frequently experimentations have been carried out by researchers..

9. See the conclusion of the paper and if possible then add it in bullet form so It will be very helpful for readers.

10. See the future work

11. See all the references properly

Author Response

See the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors present a model for the optimal design of PV irrigation systems and the apply it to a case study in Senegal. The topic of this manuscript is really interesting and scientifically sound. The results and conclusions are relevant and, in my opinion, the manuscript is a valuable contribution to the field.

The manuscript is well written and carefully organized. I recommend publishing the paper as it is

Author Response

See the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have tried hard to incorporate changes bus still i found some errors in paper so my decision is minor revision:

 

1. In abstract of paper still, the problem definition and objectives are not written properly

2. Last paragraph of the introduction section still required to be rewritten

3. See the conclusion of paper...there are several grammatical errors and it must be received the results from the article

4. Future work is not written properly

Author Response

See the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx