Use of Mixed Methods in the Science of Hydrological Extremes: What Are Their Contributions?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

No comments 

No comments 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

This paper introduces the related content of mixed methods and its contribution to hydrology research. The positivism and post-positivism paradigm in hydrology research are discussed. The content of the paper is very interesting, which provides some help for interdisciplinary research in hydrology.

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 present the potential of mixed methods and their contributions to hydrological science. The contributions of the mixed methods was described from the perspective of flood studies and low flow studies. The paper is very interesting, but there are still some problems to be improved

1           This article is mainly about the use of mixed method in flood studies and low flow studies. Is the title of the article too broad?

2           It is suggested to add some figures and tables in the article to improve the readability of the article

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1. This article is mainly about the use mixed method in flood studies and low flow studies. Is the title of the article too broad?

The title of the article has been changed to “Use of Mixed Methods in the Science of Hydrological Extremes: What Are their Contributions? “ .

2. It is suggested to add some figures and tables in the article to improve the readability of the article.

Tables and figures have been added in the text to facilitate the understanding of the informations .

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The research presented in this manuscript offers valuable insights into the constantly evolving field of hydrological sciences and its efforts to address various water-related challenges. The paper's structure and writing style are commendable, presenting a clear and concise introduction that sets the context and provides relevant background information. The use of English language is noteworthy, though there are some minor grammatical and word choice issues that could be improved for greater clarity and impact. The study's integration of mathematical and physical sciences with social sciences approaches is particularly noteworthy, as it offers a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of complex hydrological phenomena and their management. The use of mixed methods in the research provides rich and diverse insights into the study of extreme events, low flow conditions, and participatory management decision-making. Overall, the paper makes significant contributions to the field of hydrology and is deserving of recognition.

-          In the abstract, I proposed to add this improvement

Line 9 and 10: "water-related issues" should be "to address various water-related issues."

Line 11: "But nowadays, as a better" should be "Nowadays, as a better".

Line 16 and 17: "a methodological approach: the mixed methods" should be "a methodological approach, namely mixed methods".

Line 25 and 26: "improvement of participatory management decision-making about extreme hydrological events and water management." should be "improving participatory decision-making in water management and in handling extreme hydrological events."

 

The introduction effectively describes previous studies on similar topics and sets the stage for the research problem being addressed. The authors clearly state the goals of the research, but could benefit from incorporating additional literature in specific areas of the introduction (see below comments).

Line 31-35: Add literatures.

Line 53-56: Add more literatures.

Page 9 : I proposed to add this improvement

Low Flow Studies:

The phrase "the less pronounced scientific interest" could be rephrased as "less significant scientific interest"

"upon reaching each defined aquatic state" could be revised to "when each aquatic state is reached"

The phrase "questionnaire interviews to validate" could be revised to "validation through questionnaire interviews"

 

The phrase "but the stream channel may continue to support aquatic life through temporary pools" could be revised to "but the presence of temporary pools may still sustain aquatic life in the stream channel."

Author Response

Reviewer 2

In the abstract

Line 9 and 10:

The requested changes have been made.

Line 11:

The requested changes have been made.

Line 25 to 26:

The requested changes have been made.

Introduction

Line 31 – 35:

The requested changes have been made.

Line 53 – 56:

The requested changes have been made.

Page 5 to 6 Low flow studies:

The phrase “the less pronounced scientific interest” could be rephrased as “less significant scientific interest”.

The section on low flow has been rewritten.

“Upon reaching each defined aquatic state” could be revised to “when each aquatic state is reached.”

The section on low flow has been rewritten.

The phrase “questionnaire interviews to validate” could be revised to “validation through questionnaire interviews.”

The section on low flow has been rewritten.

The phrase “but the stream channel may continue to support aquatic life through temporary pools” could be revised to “but the presence of temporary pools may still sustain aquatic life in the stream channel”.

The section on low flow has been rewritten.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is rich in content and has high potential, but at its current state it is not well structured to the standard of a journal article. A major revision for the structuring of content is suggested. Major comments as follows.

1) Avoid repeating or rephrasing the same concept. Instead of tens of different explanations of mixed methods scattered all around the paper (each being slightly different from one another, making it extremely difficult for the reader to follow), a clear, concise, and firm definition could be provided upfront, and not repeated thereafter.

2) Structure of the content. The main content is made of 4 parts in my opinion: introduction and definition of mixed methods, categorization of mixed methods, examples in hydrology, and discussion/conclusion. It would be much easier for the reader if the each part can be free of content from other parts (or at least minimized). For example, avoid jumping into case studies when first introducing and defining mixed methods; avoid repeating a nuanced version of definition when introducing case studies; and avoid repeating what the case studies does in the discussion/conclusion (should be focused on what we learned from the case study). 

3) Avoid vagueness and ambiguity and instead provide concrete examples or conclusions. There are a lot of sentences that are in line with "...combining qualitative and quantitative information could lead to interesting/new ideas and thus better understanding of hydrological phenomena..." While this sentence and the like of it can be understood, the readers still do not see what is new, what is interesting, and how better understanding is achieved. Instead of repeating these general descriptions again and again, it would be better to show concretely a) a new theory formed from mixed methods research or b) how a problem cannot be solved with quantitative methods alone but can be solved with mixed methods. 

4) Although it is a review paper, it still needs original content. One suggestion is that in addition to explaining what the case study did, the authors could also add their own take of this study on a) how it could have been done differently, with potentially different mixed methods design, b) what would have been the outcome had the case study not adopted mixed methods, thus proving the usefulness, and/or c) what can we learn from the case study to apply similar mixed method approach in future studies of similar hydrology phenomena, etc.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 3 Hydrology_2212529

Reviewer 3

• Avoid repeating or rephrasing the same concept.

The article has been rewritten by removing all repetitions to present the information clearly. The definition of mixed methods is presented from line 85 to line 92.

• Structure of the content.

The requested changes have been made. The structure of the content is now presented in 5 parts:

Introduction, Definition and categorization of mixed methods, examples in hydrology, discussion, and conclusion/perspectives.

• Avoid vagueness and ambiguity and instead provide concrete examples or conclusions.

The requested changes have been made. The concrete content is presented in the different sections of the article.

• Although it is a review paper, it still needs original content.

The original content of the article includes information about our own views on the usefulness of mixed methods. Images and tables have been added to the document to bring originality to the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx