Freshwater Shortage, Salinity Increase, and Global Food Production: A Need for Sustainable Irrigation Water Desalination—A Scoping Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comments:
The authors designed the article to study the “Freshwater Shortage, Salinity Increase, and Global Food Production: A need for Sustainable Irrigation Water Desalination - A Scoping Review”. In this paper, authors reviewed the causes of fresh water shortage due to salinity increase and its ultimate effect on food production and performed some analyses after reviewing total 71 research articles, books and websites from 2010 to present. There are some discrepancies in the article which needs to be improved before final publication.
Specific Comments
The article results need to be improved and add more graphical results in it. Try to include some local based research references.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
General Comments
The authors designed the article to study the "Freshwater Shortage, Salinity Increase, and Global Food Production: A need for Sustainable Irrigation Water Desalination -A Scoping Review". In this paper, authors reviewed the causes of fresh water shortage due to salinity increase and its ultimate effect on food production and performed some analyses after reviewing total 71 research articles, books and websites from 2010 to the present. There are some discrepancies in the article, which is to be improved before final publication.
Response: We would like to thank you for valuable comment on our manuscript. We have made the necessary revisions to the manuscript considering your comment.
Specific Comments
The article results need to be improved and add more graphical results in it. Try to include some local based research references.
Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. Now we have added Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and Table 2 with more detailed discussions in the revised manuscript. We have also significantly revised section 8 with additional citations. Similarly, we have corrected the manuscript considering the comments that were tracked and changed by you on the article itself.
Reviewer 2 Report
I have made a short review of your manuscript. This is interesting and can be something you could contribute to this field. I noted a few formal shortcomings but also some other issues that you should address before the manuscript is published. I am aware that there is a large effort behind the manuscript. Simply referring to another study is not sufficient.
The discussion especially needs to be reviewed and edited. Some information added in this section is baseless. Please re-consider within the authors what you really wanted to clarify on this study and what was currently lacking in the scientific field based on careful literature review but sorry, I cannot see those from the current form.
Overall, despite the concern over the procedure, I suggest the authors work on streamlining the discussion sections and getting assistance in writing the results and discussion more clearly. I think the information presented is original, and valuable, and should be published after some of these items are addressed by the authors.
Author Response
Comment 1
I have made a short review of your manuscript. This is interesting and can be something you could contribute to this field. I noted a few formal shortcomings but also some other issues that you should address before the manuscript is published. I am aware that there is a large effort behind the manuscript. Simply referring to another study is not sufficient.
Response: We appreciate your expert comments on our manuscript. Now we have addressed each comment raised by you, and we hope our clarification is satisfying to you.
Comment 2
The discussion especially needs to be reviewed and edited. Some information added in this section is baseless. Please re-consider within the authors what you really wanted to clarify on this study and what was currently lacking in the scientific field based on careful literature review but sorry, I cannot see those from the current form.
Response: Thank you for the valuable comments. Now, we have revised the whole manuscript by adding new Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 with further discussion. Furthermore, we have also added Table 2 with more detailed discussion. Section 8 has been completely rewritten with additional citations for saline water and soil reclamation using sustainable techniques. We have also revised whole article for grammatical and typographical errors.
Comment 3
Overall, despite the concern over the procedure, I suggest the authors work on streamlining the discussion sections and getting assistance in writing the results and discussion more clearly. I think the information presented is original, and valuable, and should be published after some of these items are addressed by the authors.
Response: We appreciate your valuable comments. Now, we have revised the whole manuscript to make it more streamlined and readable with additional figures, tables, and citations.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper attempts to provide a current and future picture of freshwater scarcity due to anthropogenically induced salinity.
The paper is overly simplistic and lacks scientific analysis. The review is elementary and should be deepened with further references. The paper is poor in tables, diagrams and charts.
The processing of information is not at its best and should be reworked.
The topic addressed is only transversal to the scope of the review.
Major revisions are therefore recommended.
Author Response
Comment 1
The paper attempts to provide a current and future picture of freshwater scarcity due to anthropogenically induced salinity.
Response: We appreciate your time for the review and valuable comments. We want to clarify that the purpose of this paper is to update the readers that we need to focus on sustainable desalination methods that can reduce the salinity of irrigation water and soil which could be a cost-effective method for the farmers at any geographical location and friendly to the environment.
Comment 2
The paper is overly simplistic and lacks scientific analysis. The review is elementary and should be deepened with further references. The paper is poor in tables, diagrams and charts.
Response: The article has been now improved by adding new Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 supported with discussion and additional citations. Similarly, Table 2 has been newly added to the manuscript and supported with extra citations. We have also rewritten section 8 with new citations and a detailed discussion on sustainable technologies for water and soil reclamation. The article has been also revised for typos. We hope our clarification is satisfying to you.
Comment 3
The processing of information is not at its best and should be reworked.
Response: Thank you for the important advice. We have completely revised the article and supported it with additional Figures, Tables, and citations. The manuscript has been also revised to make it more readable.
Comment 4
The topic addressed is only transversal to the scope of the review. Major revisions are therefore recommended.
Response: Thank you for the comment. We have completely revised the article considering your valuable suggestions.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
after corrections the article is very good
