Smart Water Resource Management Using Artificial Intelligence—A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The review is of interest and offers a worthy contribution to the field. However, some revisions are required which could help further improve the quality of the work:

1-     Line 401-402: sentence is incomplete.

2-     Table 1: font is too small, not possible to read. Also, heading “Authors” should change to “Ref.” and “Remarks” to “Outcomes/Results”. Add description heading also.

3-     Table 2: please change a presentation style

4-     Some references with weak relevance are reviewed in Background section. The literature reviews should be improved to highlight the new academic contribution of the AI in different field in the manuscript.

5-     There are few grammatical errors and instances of badly worded/constructed sentences. Please check the manuscript and refine the language carefully.

6-     The limitation of the application of AI and ML in Engineering field should also be explained.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

  Thanks you for your valuable suggestions. The changes have been made in the manuscript and the doc has been uploaded

Reviewer 2 Report

In the paper, the authors developed a review of concepts, methods, and technologies to improve water resources management by efficiently evaluating the water cycle qualitatively and quantitatively. They also investigated the potential application of artificial intelligence (AI), deep learning (DL), water quality management techniques, and the internet of things (IoT) to advance water management strategies. The study resulted in emphasizing the union of various water management techniques, the use of AI/DL, and IoT to develop an efficient water management framework which was validated using case studies. The review article is well-written and has a high level of scientific quality and global significance for extended research. However, there exist certain uncertainties and clarifications that are required to elevate the readability and acceptance of this article to a diverse audience. The manuscript can be considered for publication once the major revisions are addressed by the authors. As a reviewer, I pointed out some of the areas of the work where justification / advanced work needs to be introduced and revised for improving the manuscript. 

 

1.     The title of the manuscript is incomplete as it mentions only the water cycle part of the work. The main elements of the review and the conceptual development of the data system need to be included too. The authors should work on improving the title of the manuscript. 

2.     The section “1. Introduction” should be enriched with more recent references and additional paragraphs stating the existing state-of-the-art research. Some of the information could be transferred from section “2. Background” to section “1. Introduction” regarding the existing shreds of literature on the diverse water management study methods. 

3.     The section “Abstract” mentions “The prescribed work discusses four major areas of applications that are required for efficient water management.” in Lines 7 and 8. Please specify what are the major 4 areas of application in this section and throughout the manuscript text as needed. 

4.     The review article produced good Tabular information about the current and previous research statistics. I would recommend including 2 figures of statistical analysis to reinforce the results produced in Tables 1 and 2. 

5.     In Table 1, are the results in the column “Remarks” analyzed by the authors? Please clarify.

6.     Section “2.1. IoT in water management” can be shortened considerably to retain only the needed information.

7.     A section “Results” should be included which explains the major outcomes of the review study and its major contribution to advancing the aims and scope of the journal publication. 

8.     The study lacks generality and clarity of methods that make it difficult to be reproduced beyond the case conditions implemented in this article. Are there databases or methodical sources that can be used to increase the user-friendliness of the article? Please suggest. 

 

As a reviewer, I recommend considering the manuscript in the journal, Sustainability for publication after the major revisions are well addressed by the authors.

 

Author Response

Dear Professor,

   Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The changes have been made in the manuscript and the doc has been uploaded

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Deep Learning (DL) techniques are very important in water management field. There are some suggestions, how you can improve it using my comments below:

1. Details on novelty in yours article can be described in introduction part, since you mentioned that: "new opportunities for intelligent techniques intervening to address the major challenges faced  in water management".

2. Can you explain main pollution, when writing about “Major challenge in the estimation of water quality is the variation of pollutants in  water...“?

3. According to yours finding in Part 4, there are some main conclusions missing there, e.g. will you recommend yours review to be taken in accounts by different institutional organisations and other interested companies worldwide?

Sincerely, Reviewer.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

   Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The changes have been made in the manuscript and the doc has been uploaded

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic of this paper belongs to the scope of the journal and has important theoretical and practical value. On the basis of research background analysis and literature review, this paper reviews effective and intelligent water life cycle management technologies, which has certain significance. However, the article has some issues that need to be corrected. The main issues and suggestions are as follows:

1. In the introduction, the research background is to explain th reason that  you want to research this topic. But the content of the research background should be compressed;

2. The literature review should include different content, indicating the current situation and future development trends. The content is too messy, and need to be revised clearer and more logical.

3. Although it is a literature review article, the references should not be listed in the main text, besides, it is necessary to add some opinions;

4. What is the intention of the cases in the third part of the article? Cases are generally not allowed in literature review articles;

 

5. Last, there is no discussion or conclusion in this paper. The manuscript should be greatly condensed and highlighted the main topic.

Author Response

Dear Professor,

   Thank you for your valuable suggestions. The changes have been made in the manuscript and the doc has been uploaded

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors revised the manuscript well. Thanks

Reviewer 2 Report

As a reviewer, I recommend considering the manuscript in the journal, Sustainability for publication.