Soil Detachment Rate of a Rainfall-Induced Landslide Soil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

After reading the manuscript, I did not find any methodological, conceptual or regional novelty in it.

1) The authors characterize the analyzed landslide as a rain-induced landslide-flow, to which they applied the laws of erosive washout. However, all these laws have been known for many decades. There are many dozens of different types of erosive washout models, which are used with varying degrees of efficiency in various environments. The conclusions obtained in the manuscript are the basic truths of erosion studies. I do not see this as a step forward for science.

2) I hoped to see in the work findings that shed light on the regional features of such exogenous processes in humid tropical conditions (for example, Malaysia). However, I did not find them in the manuscript.

3) Moreover, the results obtained are in no way comparable with the data of independent studies. 

4) In the manuscript, there is no information about the limitations of the study.

I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication.

Author Response

Point: After reading the manuscript, I did not find any methodological, conceptual or regional novelty in it.  

Response: Thank you so much for your comments. However, we disagree with the comments. We want to clarify that novelty does not necessarily mean a new methodology or conceptual framework. It can also refer to new insights, data or a new perspective on an existing problem. Our study has provided new insights and a new perspective on the problem of soil detachment and landslides from the perspective of the landslide mechanism, which makes it a valuable contribution to the field. Additionally, as we have mentioned that our study has the potential to inform mitigation strategies to prevent or minimize the risks associated with rainfall-induced landslides, which can have significant implications for infrastructure, property and human lives. Therefore, our study is novel and contributes to advancing knowledge in this area. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The present article conducts an evaluation of the rate of soil detachment in a soil affected by rainfall-induced landslides. Prior to the second round of revisions, the following major revisions must be addressed:

The abstract requires updating to provide a concise overview of the study, including the context, research question, hypothesis, methodology, key findings, and conclusions. Ideally, it should also contextualize the findings within the broader research area.

The introduction section requires a more detailed discussion leading to the problem statement and scope of the study. Additionally, additional literature must be included to support statements made in the text (e.g., line “Rainfall-induced landslides are natural disasters that cause a  considerable number of deaths and economic losses every year” cite https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:12(1532); line ( Rainfall-induced landslides are complex systems in which various processes interact and can significantly affect sediment transport) plesae cite both https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-015-0796-z ; line 53: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2021.100697

In addition to outlining the research goals, the novelty of the work should be clearly and effectively highlighted in the final paragraph of the introduction.

The methodology must be refined to ensure that it is logical, clear, and replicable by other researchers. If any portion or all of the methodology has been published elsewhere, it must be briefly summarized and cited accordingly.

Table 3 presents several soil parameters, and the authors must clearly state how these parameters were obtained and which testing standards were followed.

It is unclear in the text how authors quantify soil detechment please make it more apparent. The authors must explain how they achieved saturation of soil slopes. Several sections of the manuscript require revision to eliminate grammatical and formatting errors. Line (When soil is saturated with water, it becomes more susceptible to detachment because the cohesive forces that hold soil particles together are weakened by the presence of water) requires supporting references, such as https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131345 . The manuscript's formatting must also be reviewed in detail.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: The abstract requires updating to provide a concise overview of the study, including the context, research question, hypothesis, methodology, key findings, and conclusions. Ideally, it should also contextualize the findings within the broader research area.

Response 1: Thank you so much for the comment. The authors have made significant changes to the abstract to address the critical points mentioned.

Point 2: The introduction section requires a more detailed discussion leading to the problem statement and scope of the study. Additionally, additional literature must be included to support statements made in the text

Response 2: Thank you for your feedback. We revised the introduction section of the study to include a more detailed discussion leading to the problem statement and scope of the study. We also included additional literature to support the statements made in the text. We acknowledged the importance of a comprehensive and well-supported introduction, as it sets the stage for the study and provides the reader with a clear understanding of the research problem, the significance of the study, and its potential contribution to the field. Thank you for your valuable feedback, and we ensured that the updated introduction section meets the required standards.

Point 3: In addition to outlining the research goals, the novelty of the work should be clearly and effectively highlighted in the final paragraph of the introduction.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. We highlighted that findings from this study will contribute to the knowledge of the factors responsible for triggering landslides and provide insight into the behavior of soil detachment, which is currently under-researched in the literature. Ultimately, this research can inform mitigation strategies to prevent or minimize the risks associated with rainfall-induced landslides, which have significant implications for infrastructure, property and human lives.

Point 4: The methodology must be refined to ensure that it is logical, clear, and replicable by other researchers. If any portion or all of the methodology has been published elsewhere, it must be briefly summarized and cited accordingly.

Response 4: Thank you for your feedback. The methodology is a critical part of a research paper and must be refined to ensure it is logical, clear, and replicable by other researchers. To achieve this, the methodology section was updated to a clear and detailed description of the procedures, tools and techniques used in the study, including relevant parameters.

Point 5: Table 3 presents several soil parameters, and the authors must clearly state how these parameters were obtained and which testing standards were followed.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. The authors provided which testing standards were followed the obtain the results presented in Table 3 to ensure the reliability and validity of the results.

Point 6: It is unclear in the text how authors quantify soil detechment please make it more apparent. The authors must explain how they achieved saturation of soil slopes.

Response 6: Thank you for addressing this. The authors clearly explained how we quantified soil detachment in the text. It is essential to clarify this to ensure the study's methodology is transparent and replicable.

Point 7: Several sections of the manuscript require revision to eliminate grammatical and formatting errors.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. The authors carefully reviewed the manuscript to identify and corrected grammatical and formatting errors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I still haven't seen the new idea in the manuscript. The authors are trying to pass off regularities that have long been known in erosion studies and geomorphology as their novelty or some kind of breakthrough in science. It is very strange.

However, if the editors are satisfied with this approach, then so be it. I leave this without further comment.

In any case, I also did not see in the work a wide discussion of the results with the international experience of similar studies. Otherwise, the work turns into a purely regional experience and nothing more.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review the manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and suggestions.

We would like to clarify that while the regularities we observed in erosion studies and geomorphology are not entirely new, our research approach and methodology provided a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of these processes in the specific region we studied.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors only selectively addressed the comments in the paper; it is requested to revisit all the previously provided comments and revise the paper accordingly. Thanks. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf