Long-Term Flooding Maps Forecasting System Using Series Machine Learning and Numerical Weather Prediction System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript ID: water-1913676

Article Title: Long-term flooding maps forecasting system using series Machine Learning and Numerical Weather Prediction system

Comments

This study presents and focuses on Long-term flooding maps forecasting system using series Machine Learning and Numerical Weather Prediction system. The article has the scope to publish in the journal but not in the present form. The introduction needs refinements. Methodology is poorly written. Many sentences are unclear in the manuscript. Figures and Tables need to be re-formulated. Results need lot of improvements. This is the basic work in the whole manuscript I don’t see any novelty. So, I would recommend for major correction.

Comment 1: The abstract doesn’t show the accurate content and the main findings of the study area. Please add the main findings of the research work.

Comments 2: I recommend the authors to write in the Introduction more explicitly based on existing literature what is missing in previous studies, what is the added value of this new study.

Comment 3: Please proofread the article carefully; there are many linguistic errors in the manuscript. The manuscript's English need to be significantly improved. In the last line of the introduction Authors have written thre “More details about study area and methodologies can be found in chapter 2 and 3”. It should be---study area and methodologies can be found in sections 2 and 3.

Comment 4: There are lots of articles published in the similar research area in last 3-5 years in the same journal. Please refer to it in this manuscript.

Comment 5: Recheck all the notations and use the same notations. Some unnecessary spaces were given in the manuscript to rectify.

Comment 6: The applications of the study should be highlighted at the end of the Discussion.

Comments 7: Please add more discussion material. What were perhaps different results from other studies and why?

Comments 8: The conclusion should be specific. It is recommended to just highlight the key findings of the work. In the section Research gaps and future scope, it should be specific not in general form.

 The article has the scope to publish in the journal but not in the present form. The introduction needs refinements. The methodology is poorly written. Many sentences are unclear in the manuscript. Figures and Tables need to be re-formulated. The discussion section needs a lot of improvements. I would recommend it for a major correction.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper needs major revisions:

1-Why did authors use SVM in comparisons with Random Forest (RF), Model Tree (MT), and Multivariate Adaptive Regression Spline (MARS)?? This issue should be comprehensive mentioned in the introduction section??

2-Research organization should be improved at the end of introduction section.

3-Literature review of flood mapping by RS and AI models can be improved by:

-Flood monitoring by integration of Remote Sensing technique and Multi-Criteria Decision Making method

-Flood risk mapping by remote sensing data and random forest technique

4-In Table 3, "Test" would read "Testing.

5-Uncertanity and reliability of SVM-MSF in Training and Testing sections should be carried out as found in the "Receiving More Accurate Predictions for Longitudinal Dispersion Coefficients in Water Pipelines: Training Group Method of Data Handling Using Extreme Learning Machine Conceptions".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript, water-1913676-peer-review-v1- entitled "Long-term flooding maps forecasting system using series Machine Learning and Numerical Weather Prediction system," is well written and has potential, but it should be more organized. This research investigates the Machine Learning and Numerical Weather Prediction system to produce the flooding maps.

In my opinion, a careful revision of the English language should be carried out as there currently are some unclear sentences. The study seems to be well designed. The methodology and results are technically sound. Discussions on the scientific and practical values of the study, the limitations of proposed models, and future work are meaningful. I recommend accepting this manuscript after revision. The main concerns are as follows:

1)     The first paragraph should explain more about the importance of modeling and flood forecasting.

2)     Quantitative results should be provided in the abstract to make it more comprehensive. Results of model Should be added in the abstract section. Also, The main aim of the study should be clearly mentioned in the abstract.

3)     More recent references might support the first and second paragraphs of the introduction. Many references and literature are pretty old. There is no research reference in 2022, 2021 and 2019. The authors should read and use the newly published papers in their research.

4)     More literature review about the other methods is needed. The manuscript could be substantially improved by relying and citing more on recent literature about contemporary real-life case studies of sustainability and/or uncertainty, such as the followings.

·       Vadiati, M., Rajabi Yami, Z., Eskandari, E., Nakhaei, M., & Kisi, O. (2022). Application of artificial intelligence models for prediction of groundwater level fluctuations: case study (Tehran-Karaj alluvial aquifer). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(9), 1-21.

·       Samani, S., Vadiati, M., Azizi, F., Zamani, E., & Kisi, O. (2022). Groundwater Level Simulation Using Soft Computing Methods with Emphasis on Major Meteorological Components. Water Resources Management, 36(10), 3627-3647.

5)     I recommend providing a table containing the advantages and disadvantages of the applied methodology based on the literature review and comparing the applied methodology and the similar methodologies.

6)     For readers to quickly catch your contribution, it would be better to highlight significant difficulties and challenges and your original achievements to overcome them more straightforwardly in the abstract and introduction.

7)     Taiwan Island is adopted as the case study. What are other feasible alternatives? What are the advantages of adopting this case study over others in this case? How will this affect the results? The authors should provide more details on this.

8)     Please provide all software used in this study. Which software did you use to apply the model?

9)     It is better to add more error criteria to better understand the model's ability.

10)  The discussion section in the present form is relatively weak and should be strengthened with more details and justifications.

11)  Comparison of the current study with previous research could be improved by more literature review.

12)  It seems that conclusions are observations only, and the manuscript needs thorough checking for explanations given for results. The authors should interpret more precisely the results argument.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has the scope to publish in the journal in the present form. Please proofread the article carefully again; there are many linguistic errors in the manuscript. I would recommend it for acceptance in the present form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have not addressed reviewer's comments specifically. Therefore, the present version of paper needs to go through deep revisions. For example, the present results require robust comparisons with literature in terms of quality and quantity.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Accept in present form

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept as is