Water Security in the Anthropocene: A Dialectical Water–Man Interaction Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
the work is very interesting and reflects the purpose of the journal. Here are some tips to improve your work:
- Explicit the acronym DPSIR.
- The discussion section should be further enriched with comments on the results obtained.
- In the conclusions, clarify the advantages of using the new approach suggested.
Author Response
Dear reviewer_1,
Thank you for your valuable comments.
The corrections are in the attached file as follows:
- Explicit the acronym DPSIR
see p.10 in yellow
- The discussion section should be further enriched with comments on the results obtained.
- In the conclusions, clarify the advantages of using the new approach suggested.
see pp. 13 and 15 in yellow
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper study a dialectical Water-Man interaction model to water security, it is interesting, but many contents need to improve, some revision should do before publication.
1 Introduction, all of the reference 1,2,3,4,5,6 marked at the end of paragraphs, it is not suitable, I suggest the author revise it and add some references in paragraphs.
Line 153,183, the same with above
2 Line 46,there has a mistake in reference [3].
3 Line 79-83, the author should indicate the main research targets and contents briefly.
4 Figure 4,5,6 are too simple, I suggest delete it or revise in detail. The author should incorporate the figure 4-7 into one figure.
5 Discussion, more deeply discussion should add about the model compared to other models.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer_2,
Thank you for your valuable comments.
See the attached file for the corrections.
1 Introduction, all of the reference 1,2,3,4,5,6 marked at the end of paragraphs, it is not suitable, I suggest the author revise it and add some references in paragraphs.
All the above references have been distributed in paragraphs: see them in the attached file in green
Line 153,183, the same with above
Same as above
2 Line 46, there has a mistake in reference [3].
The reference [3] is a chapter in a book. See the correction on p. 14 in green.
3 Line 79-83, the author should indicate the main research targets and contents briefly.
See the addition in green on p. 2
4 Figure 4,5,6 are too simple, I suggest delete it or revise in detail. The author should incorporate the figure 4-7 into one figure.
Figures 4,5,6, have been incorporated in the new figure 4.
5 Discussion, more deeply discussion should add about the model compared to other models.
See the new discussion text on p. 12 in yellow.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, the work is interesting, well written and structured. I have a few minor comments for the authors:
It is preferable not to repeat words from the title in keywords.
I recommend that the text on the figures be written in the same font as the text in the paper, because in its current form it looks tiring.
Use hyphen between values.
Line 126: Write [11,12] instead of [11], [12].
Line 153: Write [13,14] instead of [13], [14].
Same for lines 287, 307.
Use the Sustainability template to write the sources (journal abbreviation, volume, number, pages mostly).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer_3,
See the attached file for the corrections.
It is preferable not to repeat words from the title in keywords.h
New keywords have been added. See them in blue.
I recommend that the text on the figures be written in the same font as the text in the paper, because in its current form it looks tiring.
New figures have been drawn accordingly.
Use hyphen between values.
Line 126: Write [11,12] instead of [11], [12].
Line 153: Write [13,14] instead of [13], [14].
Same for lines 287, 307.
Done, See the attached file in blue
Use the Sustainability template to write the sources (journal abbreviation, volume, number, pages mostly).
Done.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
in my opinion, your work is ready for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
I like to thank the authors as they both improved the manuscript after taking all my suggestions into consideration and provided me with a satisfying reply. Hence, I'm pleased to recommend the editor to accept manuscript's current version for publication.
