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 Dr. Usta,
The reviewer has accepted all the changes you made, and your work can be published in PeerJ in its current version - congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Monika Mortimer, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Authors did a great job. The article in the present state has properly addressed all the comments. The quality has been improved enormously.
It's perfectly alright.
The findings are valuable in the current state of knowledege of this research area.
The article can be accepted for publication in the said journal.
Dear Dr Usta,
Two independent experts have agreed to evaluate your work. Both were in consensus that this work may be published in the PeerJ journal, but it needs thorough revisions beforehand. Please review the detailed comments from the reviewers and address each of them accordingly.
With best regards,
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
The introduction and results sections of the manuscript need major improvements. Specific suggestion are given below.
Introduction: The justification or rationale and objectives of the study should be incorporated into the introduction to provide context and clarity about the research aims.
Results: The results section should be rewritten to focus on the key findings of the study, presenting them clearly and concisely.
Discussion: The discussion part of the manuscript may be strengthened by comparing and contrasting the findings with those of more relevant manuscripts, which can help provide a deeper understanding of the research outcomes and their implications.
The other sections of the manuscript have some grammatical and formatting issues, which are mentioned as comments to the specific lines (please the attached annotated PDF file).
No comment
The findings of this study have positive implications. However, it would be better to conclude about the performance of the models based on the more statistical parameters rather than depending on the only one.
Try to use high-resolution pictures.
The submitted paper is found to be interesing and valuable to a number of readers. The research topic is an up-to-date attempt to compare different methods for the estimation of evapotranspiration , basing on one measuring, meteorological station and direct some class-A pan evaporometer measurements. Such organization of the research is considered to be most proper, however, direct hypothesis is missing. Is the comparison of the methods the only goal of the paper? Should the authors kindly state, what could be the real achievement or novelty through comparing different methods for one region solely? The structure of the paper is appropriate and the literature references are sufficient.
The presented knowledge seems to bridge the existing gap, nonetheless, only for one climatic region. The undertaken analyes fall within the scope of the journal. The research question, to the best of my belief, and respectful of the tremendous work of the authors, is of secondary importance. The investigation methods are sufficiently described, however, according to the conclusions, the obtained ET differences between the metohds are statistically insignificant, that makes them not vital in fact. I would rather compare the existing methods ( Cuenca, 289 FAO-56, Modified Snyder, Orang, Snyder and Wahed & Snyder ) for a couple of meteorological stations, to see which differences may occur, since we take a few regions and apply a number of methods to one station in a region. If available, pan evaporometer measurements could be also compared with FAO method for a number of regions. I strongly suggest, the authors try to take the data of the meteorological stations from few regions of Turkey, and apply different ET calcualtion methods to one station. Would you furhter state, if different methods for one station exert statistically significant differences between results ? So far the conclusions are quite plain and superficial. What could be the differences in evapotranspiration by FAO method for particular months in different regions of the country? (Turkey)
The research question is well establised but it may not be based on one station only. As far as I am concerned, it would be better to compare the ET results between different climatic regions of the country or continent, at least as an introductory part.
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.