Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1063-1076, 2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
|Interactive discussion||Status: closed|
|AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment|
|- Printer-friendly version - Supplement|
|RC1: 'Referee report', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Sep 2016|
|AC1: 'Response to Anonymous Reviewer #1', William Gray, 06 Nov 2016|
|RC2: 'Review of "on the consistency..." by J. McClure et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Oct 2016|
|AC2: 'Response to Comments of Anonymous Reviewer #2', William Gray, 06 Nov 2016|
|Peer review completion|
|AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision|
|ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (20 Nov 2016) by Prof. Remko Uijlenhoet|
You have been served by two extensive review reports by colleagues that are much more knowledgeable on the subject matter of your work than I am. Both reviewers have raised a number of general issues (relevance to the broader hydrological community, link with Prof. Eric Wood's work, novelty with respect to previous work, definitions e.g. of macro-/micro-scale) as well as a number of technical issues.
You have provided detailed responses to all of the issues raised, for which I am thankful. On some counts you seem to agree with the points raised by the reviewers, on others you disagree. That is not a problem as such, as this seems to be part of a constructive debate among scientists.
Based on the review reports, your replies, as well as my own appreciation of the manuscript, I have decided to reconsider your manuscript after major revisions. The revised manuscript will be sent out for review again, in principle to the same reviewers that have commented on the first version of your manuscript.
Please provide, in addition to your replies to the issues raised by the reviewers, a detailed indication on how and where you have revised the formulation of your manuscript. In addition to the points raised by the reviewers, I would like to ask you to pay particular attention to the fact that HESS is a journal with a broad readership from the entire hydrological community (and beyond). It would therefore add to your manuscript if you would be able to reach out to that broader hydrological community (not necessarily experts in issues of soil physics and/or the physics of transport processes in porous media). This could be achieved, for instance, by better explaining the relevance of this work for the community of hydrological researchers dealing with hydrological processes at the scale of river catchments, large river basins, or even entire continents. That would really bridge the (scale) gap between your work and that of Prof. Wood and clarify the relevance of your work for researchers working on entirely different spatial and temporal scales. Along the way, you could take more room to explain your definitions of macro- vs. micro-scale as well as other issues raised by the reviewers.
Your replies to the reviewers' comments suggest that you have concrete ideas on how to revise your manuscript. Please go ahead and do so, bearing in mind the suggestions made above. I am looking forward to handling a thoroughly revised version of your manuscript and a point-by-point response to the issues raised by the reviewers. Thank you very much in advance.
|AR by Anna Mirena Feist-Polner on behalf of the Authors (30 Nov 2016) Author's response Manuscript|
|ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (30 Nov 2016) by Prof. Remko Uijlenhoet|
Thank you very much for providing a detailed response to the issues raised by the reviewers and for providing a revised version of your manuscript. As indicated before, I will send the revised manuscript out for review again, to the same reviewers as the ones that reviewed the first version of your manuscript.
|ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (04 Dec 2016) by Prof. Remko Uijlenhoet|
|RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (21 Dec 2016)|
|RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (22 Dec 2016)|
|ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by Editor and Referees) (10 Jan 2017) by Prof. Remko Uijlenhoet|
Thanks for submitting a revised version of your manuscript and replies to the reviewers' comments. Both reviewers have evaluated your revised manuscript. Reviewer #2 has some concerns about the presentation style of the manuscript, but finds the contents of the paper generally acceptable. However, reviewer #1 still has serious reservations with your paper, questioning the novelty of the presented results and their relevance to hydrology.
Based on these reviews and my own appreciation of your revised manuscript and rebuttal, I suggest to consider the comments and suggestions provided by both reviewers carefully and provide responses where possible. Also indicate where this could lead to revised formulations in the paper. In particular, I would like to ask you to clarify better where and how this paper adds to previously published work. Thank you very much in advance.
|AR by William Gray on behalf of the Authors (12 Jan 2017) Author's response Manuscript|
|ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (12 Jan 2017) by Prof. Remko Uijlenhoet|
|RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (12 Jan 2017)|
|RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (16 Jan 2017)|
|ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (further review by Editor) (16 Jan 2017) by Prof. Remko Uijlenhoet|
Thank you very much for submitting your replies to the issues raised by the reviewers and for submitting the revised version of your paper.
As you can see, reviewer #1 still feels the paper will probably not easily fit into the scope of the other papers to be published as part of the Special Issue of HESS honoring Prof. Eric Wood. The main point of this reviewer is that the spatial scale at which you deal with the topic of scale consistency among experiments, theory and simulation (namely that of soil as a porous medium) is likely going to be quite disparate from the spatial scales at which Prof. Wood and many of his colleagues have been and are working (namely that of landscapes, catchments, river basins, and continents). The reviewer is therefore not convinced that your work is going to provide new perspectives for hydrologists trying to model the world at such larger scales. That may be true, but at the same time the reviewer does not seem to have major concerns with the technical details of your work. Therefore, I am inclined to leave the discussion about the value of your work from a broader hydrological perspective to the readers of the pages of HESS and other scientific journals rather than to the reviewers of your manuscript alone.
Reviewer #2 also seems to have no major issues with the technical content of your revised manuscript. This reviewer still finds the way in which you present your work, including your reference to Prof. Wood's work, not appropriate for a regular paper that is submitted to become part of a special issue. Although I am sympathetic with this reviewer's perspective, I feel that the presentation style is merely a matter of taste.
In conclusion, I recommend to accept your manuscript subject to minor revisions. As far as I am concerned, the paper will not be sent out for review again. I would appreciate it very much if you could give it one last try to accommodate some of the issues raised by the referees. Thank you very much in advance. I look forward to handling the revised version of your manuscript.
|AR by William Gray on behalf of the Authors (17 Jan 2017) Author's response Manuscript|
|ED: Publish as is (20 Jan 2017) by Prof. Remko Uijlenhoet|
Thanks once more for your replies to the issues raised by the reviewers and for accommodating some of their suggestions in the final version of your manuscript. Notwithstanding the rather critical reviews of the previous version of your manuscript, I have decided, after consulting the chief guest editor of the special issue to which you submitted your manuscript, to accept the final version of your manuscript for publication as is.