All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Dear Authors,
I congratulate you for this rigourous study that has implications in water demand applications, and thank you for incorporating all the suggestions provided by the reviewers on the earlier version of this manuscript.
Thank you once again and keep up the good work.
Best regards
Gowhar Meraj
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Monika Mortimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The revised version looks well organized, written in standard English. The sufficient work has been cited in the introduction section to explain the problem. The theoretical properties are derived and demonstrated using real and simulated data.
The research problem is well defined by the authors. A rigorous numerical study is also performed to support the theoretical results.
The numerical study is valid. The authors have provided all data used to perform the numerical study.
The revised version looks satisfactory and can be published in its current form.
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided.
Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses.
Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap.
Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate.
Impact and novelty not assessed. Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results
'no comment'
'no comment'
'no comment'
The work is now suitable for publication.
Dear Authors,
I am glad that we have now received the reviews of your manuscript, as you can see that the reviewers are suggesting considerable changes aimed at improving your work. Please go through the comments of all the reviewers and revise your manuscript accordingly. Reviewer 1 has provided annotated manuscript pdf with comments, please check it for their suggestions. Reviewers 2 and 3 have suggested some literature for discussion. If the suggested papers are relevant to your work, only then cite and use them.
I wish you all the best and shall be looking for receiving your manuscript within the deadline.
Best regards
Gowhar Meraj
[# PeerJ Staff Note: It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors are in agreement that they are relevant and useful #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services - please contact us at copyediting@peerj.com for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title) #]
The authors should meticulously readout the manuscript to remove the grammatical errors. Moreover, they should also revised the introduction section by citing the latest related references.
Experimental design is clearly written. Some mathematical symbols are overlapping, they should be improved.
The findings are looking valid.
NA
The article does not include sufficient introduction and background to demonstrate how the work fits into the broader field of knowledge. Relevant prior literature should be appropriately referenced.
For help, you can use the following references after modifying the introduction section.
- In lines 26-28, you can add (https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aada50 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107122 - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-019-0039-9)
No comment
The discussion section looks very weak, authors must improve it by using recent literature to validate their findings.
1- The paper requires extensive improving in writing by a fluent English speaker
2- The introduction looks weak, as the hypothesis, rational, and novelty are not clearly presented.
3- The discussion needs further improvement using recent references.
No comment.
No comment.
Findings are valid.
The work is about the development of estimators of the population total with an application of water demand. The work is well written however some minor suggestions as given below:
1. As the article covers missing data topic. So, authors can discuss the issue with detail by including the following latest references from literature:
a. Shahzad, U., Hanif, M., Koyuncu, N., Garcia Luengo, A.V., 2017, Estimation of population variance using quartiles in absence and presence of non-response, Gazi University Journal of Science, 30 (2):205-218.
b. Shahzad, U., Hanif, M., Koyuncu, N., Sanaullah, A., 2018, On the estimation of population variance using auxiliary attribute in absence and presence of non-response, Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis, 11, 2, 608-621.
c. Shahzad, U., Hanif, M., Koyuncu, N., Garcia Luengo, A.V., 2019, A regression estimator for mean estimation under ranked set sampling alongside the sensitivity issue., Communications Faculty of Sciences University of Ankara, Series A1: Mathematics and Statistics, 65, 2, 2037-2049.
d. Shahzad, U., Al-Noor, N. H., Hanif, M., Sajjad, I., Anas, M. M., 2022, Imputation based mean estimators in case of missing data utilizing robust regression and variance-covariance matrices., Communications in Statistics- Simulation and Computation, 51, 8, 4276-4295.
e. Shahzad, U., Hanif, M., Sajjad, I., Anas, M. M., 2020, Quantile regression-ratio-type estimators for mean estimation under complete and partial auxiliary information., Scientia Iranica, DOI: 10.24200/SCI.2020.54423.3744.
f. Anas, M. M., Huang, Z., Shahzad, U., Zaman, T., Shahzadi, S., 2022, Compromised imputation based mean estimators using robust quantile regression., Communications in Statistics- Simulation and Computation, DOI:10.1080/03610926.2022.2108057.
2. Line 173-178
Explain uniform non-response below the heading.
3. Line 201
Explain what is linear assisting model.
4. Line 207
Explain W
5. Re-write Line 296.
6. In conclusion, also give future direction about pure-work too.
The topic is based on an informative abstract and clear logic and hence it seems that the work is original. Also, the paper is well-written and has some publishable materials.
no comments
The heading “Results and Discussion” in line 222 is inappropriate at this place. Authors should discuss the computational results before the conclusion section under this heading.
1. The authors should revise the introduction section by citing the newly published (in between 2019-2022) studies based on missing data problems.
2. The authors should proofread the manuscript very clearly to remove typos and grammatical errors.
3. The heading “Results and Discussion” in line 222 is inappropriate at this place. Authors should discuss the computational results before the conclusion section under this heading.
4. The authors should present the computational results through diagrams.
The manuscript can be accepted for publication after minor revision.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.