Next Article in Journal
The Cost of Alternative Water Supply and Efficiency Options under Uncertainty: An Application of Modern Portfolio Theory and Chebyshev’s Inequality
Previous Article in Journal
Development of Global Snow Cover—Trends from 23 Years of Global SnowPack
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Influence of Infiltrations on the Recharge of the Nkoabang Aquifer Located in the Center Region, Cameroon

Earth 2023, 4(1), 23-39; https://doi.org/10.3390/earth4010002
by Monique Makuate Tagne 1, Merlin Simo-Tagne 2,*, Nnaemeka R. Nwakuba 3, Estelle Ndome Effoudou-Priso 4, Jules Rémy Ndam Ngoupayou 1, Michel Mbessa 1, Ablain Tagne Tagne 1 and Razika Kharchi 5
Reviewer 2:
Earth 2023, 4(1), 23-39; https://doi.org/10.3390/earth4010002
Submission received: 20 December 2022 / Revised: 28 December 2022 / Accepted: 29 December 2022 / Published: 1 January 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

1. The text quality in Figs. 1 and 2 need improvements.

2. Please discuss the conceptual design of the research.

3. Please discuss the uncertainty you input in the Tables.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time.

Please, see the manuscript attached on this message.

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

 

Overall, it is well written article and suitable for publication under this journal. I can say that it has some interesting and valuable results with unique finings. But, it is not yet ready for final publication under earth Journal unless the below highlighted comments be addressed. These are as follow:

-    In page 2, lines 88&89, why written in red colour? Kindly change it to be a black colour. Similar thing noticed in page 9, lines 287-289. It is also noticed in other pages in the manuscript.

-        Your literature review is not sufficient and outdated! Pleas add more recent studies to keep the work up to date!

-          Clearly justify your research gap?

-          Be more specific in your final conclusion!

-          The main contribution has not specifically highlighted!

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your time.

Please, see the manuscript attached on this message.

Best Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.


Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.          Please use formal representation for the unit of water flow.

2.          The meaning of Figure 6 is unclear. What are you like to address or compare? Please give a more detailed explanation.

3.          Symbol is inconsistent in equation (1) and Table 1, e.g. hp. (table content and table note)

4.          Please give a brief presentation of the conceptual design for research so that reader can easily understand.

5.          Please put a symbol list in Figure 2 so that reader can quickly realize the main issue.

6.          What is “the start” in the flow chart, Figure 2?

7.          It needs to address uncertainty in data collection.

8.          What are the significant insights of the result that can use for groundwater management?

Back to TopTop