Forecasting of Flash Floods Peak Flow for Environmental Hazards and Water Harvesting in Desert Area of El-Qaa Plain, Sinai

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. There is need for a thorough English language editing. For example, starting from Abstract the authors are using 'predict' where they are supposed to use prediction. The units of the volume must also be provided, e.g. 0 cubic metres.
2. In the abstract, although the issue is clear, it is not sufficiently articulated to merit a problem. The gap must be clearly unpacked and right from the Abstract as well as in the Introduction section.
3.  The methodology must be sufficiently stated and justified. It also needs to be clear what is new in this paper, otherwise, the originality/novelty of this article is difficult to judge in its current form.
4. In both the concluding section and the abstract, the areas for future research directions must be provided. Research study of this type cannot be exhaustive, the authors need to show that they have consulted enough literature in order to come up with this paper, and this is exhibited by stating the areas for future research directions.
5. The appropriateness of the research design can only be established if the authors can show where their study takes off from the previous studies.

 

 

Author Response

We deeply thank Reviewer#1 for the positive position about the relevancy of this topic and for all the valuable remarks about our text that he/she brought to our attention. Please see the responses to comments and the revised manuscript.

Q1: There is need for a thorough English language editing. For example, starting from Abstract the authors are using 'predict' where they are supposed to use prediction. The units of the volume must also be provided, e.g. 0 cubic metres.

R1: Thanks, it was edited through the text.

Q2: In the abstract, although the issue is clear, it is not sufficiently articulated to merit a problem. The gap must be clearly unpacked and right from the Abstract as well as in the Introduction section.

R2: Thanks, it was edited introduction section; please see lines from 40 to 132.

Q3: The methodology must be sufficiently stated and justified. It also needs to be clear what is new in this paper, otherwise, the originality/novelty of this article is difficult to judge in its current form.

R3: Thanks, it was added; please see lines from 21 to 23 in abstract and from line 127 to 131 in introduction.

Q4: In both the concluding section and the abstract, the areas for future research directions must be provided. Research study of this type cannot be exhaustive, the authors need to show that they have consulted enough literature in order to come up with this paper, and this is exhibited by stating the areas for future research directions.

R4: Thanks, it was added; please see lines from 33 to 35 in abstract and from line 367 to 369 in conclusion.

Q5: The appropriateness of the research design can only be established if the authors can show where their study takes off from the previous studies.

R5: Thanks, it was added, please see from lines 316 to 335.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals with the important issue of flash floods and their consequences for the catchment area. The article has some shortcomings and ambiguities.

• In my opinion, the introduction lacks a clearly stated thesis / research hypothesis.
• In Chapter 2, Figure 1 is poorly described - this figure consists of two a) and b) and in the text describing Figure 1 only b is given.
• In subsection 2.2. in my opinion, the explanation of table 1 should be found under the table and not in the main text.
• The chapter on research results is modest. In my opinion, the result chapter and discussion should constitute at least 60% of the publication with the status of a research article (the introduction takes up more space than the results and discussion).
• In my opinion, the notation of some units is inconsistent with the standards of the SI system, e.g. km / h; m³ / sec etc. In my opinion, the notation of some units is inconsistent with the standards of the SI system, e.g. km / h; m3 / sec etc. Must be written as: km·h^–1; m³s^–1 etc.
• It is also written once as m3 / sec. and once without a dot or km / h and then mm / hr - the text in the manuscript should be standardized. Is 'h' the same as 'hr' (hour?).
• Figure 4 has the word 'year' while figure 5 has the word 'years'. Please correct the spelling in English.
• The discussion of the results, in my opinion, is poorly written. I suggest referring to the research on a topic similar to that of other ayrors from around the world.
• Line 243: is this notation numerically correct?
• Lines 275-278 are repeating the same as above. For what?
• Chapter 5 lacks a clearly formulated conclusion resulting from the analyzes carried out.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We deeply thank Reviewer#2 for the positive position about the relevancy of this topic and for all the valuable remarks about our text that he/she brought to our attention. Please see the responses to comments and the revised manuscript.

Q1: In my opinion, the introduction lacks a clearly stated thesis / research hypothesis.

R3: Thanks, it was added. Please see lines from 127 to 131 in introduction.

Q2: In Chapter 2, Figure 1 is poorly described - this figure consists of two a) and b) and in the text describing Figure 1 only b is given.

R1: Thanks, it was described in the text.

Q3: In subsection 2.2. in my opinion, the explanation of table 1 should be found under the table and not in the main text.

R3: Thanks, it was done; please see lines 183 and 187.

Q4: The chapter on research results is modest. In my opinion, the result chapter and discussion should constitute at least 60% of the publication with the status of a research article (the introduction takes up more space than the results and discussion).

R5: Thanks, the introduction was improved; please see lines 40 and 132.

Q5: In my opinion, the notation of some units is inconsistent with the standards of the SI system, e.g. km / h; m³ / sec etc. In my opinion, the notation of some units is inconsistent with the standards of the SI system, e.g. km / h; m3 / sec etc. Must be written as: km·h^–1; m³s^–1 etc.

R5: Thanks, it was done; please see lines 170 to 175; and from 209 to 211

Q6: It is also written once as m3 / sec. and once without a dot or km / h and then mm / hr - the text in the manuscript should be standardized. Is 'h' the same as 'hr' (hour?).

R6: Thanks, it was done; please see lines from 234 to 237.

Q7: Figure 4 has the word 'year' while figure 5 has the word 'years'. Please correct the spelling in English.

R6: Thanks, it was corrected; please see lines 259 and 280.

Q8:The discussion of the results, in my opinion, is poorly written. I suggest referring to the research on a topic similar to that of other ayrors from around the world.

R8: Thanks, it was added; please see from lines 316 to 335.

Q9: Line 243: is this notation numerically correct?

R9: Thanks, it was corrected.

Q10: Lines 275-278 are repeating the same as above. For what?

R10: Thanks, it was updated; please see from lines 357 to 359.

Q11: Chapter 5 lacks a clearly formulated conclusion resulting from the analyzes carried out.

R11: Thanks, it was updated; please see lines 353 and 368.

Reviewer 3 Report

The prediction of peak flow of flash floods is a popular topic nowadays due to climate change and its effect on water management is a crucial engineering problem. The authors used the software environment confidently, but the presentation of the results could be further improved as follows:

• a case study is presented, but try to expand the introduction section to show the global applicability of the methodology used to gain more readers’ interest
• rename the section 2.2 – omit the software name and rather use: hydrological frequency analysis
• equation 1 is useless, please delete it
• line 197 revise the units: discharge cannot be in cms, instead of sq.km use km²
• Table 2 is unnecessary, because Figure 5 shows the same results
• eqs. 6-7 is presented by Figure 6 , don’t duplicate it to write separately eq. 6 and eq7.
• in the conclusion be more precise regarding the applicability of the results
• proofread carefully to eliminate typos

Author Response

We deeply thank Reviewer#3 for the positive position about the relevancy of this topic and for all the valuable remarks about our text that he/she brought to our attention. Please see the responses to comments and the revised manuscript.

The prediction of peak flow of flash floods is a popular topic nowadays due to climate change and its effect on water management is a crucial engineering problem. The authors used the software environment confidently, but the presentation of the results could be further improved as follows:

Q1: a case study is presented, but try to expand the introduction section to show the global applicability of the methodology used to gain more readers’ interest.

R1: Thanks, it was updated.

Q2: Rename the section 2.2 – omit the software name and rather use: hydrological frequency analysis

R2: Thanks, it was corrected; please see line 169.

Q3: equation 1 is useless, please delete it

R3: Thanks, it was deleted; please see line 199.

Q4: line 197 revise the units: discharge cannot be in cms, instead of sq.km use km²

R4: Thanks, it was corrected; please see line 236.

Q5:Table 2 is unnecessary, because Figure 5 shows the same results

R5: Thanks, because the recurrence interval of 2, 5 year with average hydrograph have low values and doesn’t appear in the figure so it is better to remain the table.

Q6: eqs. 6-7 is presented by Figure 6 , don’t duplicate it to write separately eq. 6 and eq7.

R6: Thanks, it was corrected; please see lines 309 and 310.

Q7: in the conclusion be more precise regarding the applicability of the results

R7: Thanks, it was updated; please see lines 353 and 368.

Q8: proofread carefully to eliminate typos

R8: Thanks, it was updated through the text.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed my concerns satisfactorily.