OGRS2016 reviewer report
Name of the reviewer Barend KOBBEN, University of Twente, Netherlands
Title of the Short Paper The open geohazard widget to perform environmental risk analysis
Does the submission provide adequate motivation and interesting conclusions? Fair
Does the submission address a challenging or new theoretical/practical issue? No
Does the submission present a new approach to an issue or does it put forward a novel combination of existing ideas or techniques? Yes
Is the submission technically sound? Fair
Are the results clearly described and critically evaluated? Fair
Is the submission clearly written and logically structured? Fair
Does the submission correctly situate itself within the context of existing research literature? Poor
Is the paper closely related to OGRS scope with a content interesting to the OGRS attendees (geospatial research and/or education) ? Good
Does the submission aptly argue the open source approach ? Poor
What is the dominant among the below elements of typology? The contribution is rather thematic, that is to say mainly addresses a case study
I recommend the contribution for an oral presentation but not for the publication in PeerJ Computer Science
Comments for the authors "This paper does describe an interesting case study, but its structure and writing is not of enough quality to merit publication in a journal without quite some editing work:
- The structure is rather confusing, the section headers do not clearly cover the contents, and a conclusion or discussion part is missing
- the flood and landslide risk parts are mixed up and in some cases it's not clear which is addressed. (eg. line 44)
- The Open Source approach is not discussed - you only mention ""based on OS software"" and ""respects Open Data requirements (which?)
- the client is named a ""widget"" without any explanation how and why this is different from a 'normal' web client
- the client is called a "" 3d Client"", but this is not discussed (why) and also not evident from the showcase webpage (where it appears to be purely 2d)
- several times the system is called ""flexible"" without any explanation how this is defined and how you support this claim (especially here the discussion part is sorely missing).
- In some parts the text is confusing and hard to understand (eg. lines 37, 41, 54)
- The English needs to be checked (specifically the use of articles. Eg. line 69 ""[The] System calculates [a] landslide susceptibility map"")"
Overall index of quality of the manuscript from 0 (poor quality) to 10 (good quality), passing from 5 (fair quality) 6
You can also choose to receive updates via daily or weekly email digests. If you are following multiple preprints then we will send you no more than one email per day or week based on your preferences.
Note: You are now also subscribed to the subject areas of this preprint and will receive updates in the daily or weekly email digests if turned on. You can add specific subject areas through your profile settings.
Usage since published - updated daily