Share a portion of a peer-reveiewer's comments on paper entitled "Morphometric and Morphotectonic Analysis of XXX  Basin  of XXX Valley". The reviewer’ comments on how to write an introduction  can be  a good guide for authors.

The paper deals with the tectonic geomorphology of the relatively less studied NW part of the Himalaya. The paper certainly contains some science, but its below the minimum standards of any international publication. In its present form, I cannot recommend publication of the paper, but I strongly recommend that the author(s) thoroughly revise it. The following major issues must be taken into account while revising the paper:

1.The language of the paper is very poor; quite often, it’s very difficult to understand the sentences and their meanings. Therefore, the author(s) should first of all thoroughly revise and correct the language.

2.The author(s) should clearly mention, in the very beginning i.e. the “Introduction” chapter, the very purpose of carrying out this research. In fact the “Introduction” of the paper in is written very vaguely. In order to make it more specific the author(s) should clearly answer the following questions in the “Introduction” of the paper:

(i)why the author(s) has/have done this study?

(ii)why did he/they select this particular area for this specific research?,

(iii)what methodology did he/they adopt for their study?

(iv)what outcome do(es) they/he expect from this study? and,

(v)what is the importance/contribution of this study?

3.The author(s) must consult recent papers on tectonic geomorphological investigations in different parts of the world in general and Himalaya in particular (e.g. Ahmad et al. Geomorphology2015; Bagha et al. Geomorphology2014; Goswami and Deopa, Z.Geomorph2012; Rachna Raj, J.Asian E Science2012; Ramasamy et al., Tectonophys2011; Agarwal and Sharma, Z.Geomorph2011; Figueroa and Knott, Geomorphology2010; Goswami et al. J.Earth Syst. Sci.2009; Singh and Tandon, Geomorphology2008; Goswami and Pant, Int.Jour.Remote Sensing, 2008; Malik and Mohanty, J.Asian E Science2007; Singh and Tandon, Quart Int. 2006). These papers are immensely useful for the kind of study presented in this paper. The author(s) should redefine the objectives of their study in the light of these newer studies. He/they should give a good summary of these works in the “Introduction” of the paper.

4.The 2nd Chapter of the paper, “Study Area”, is also written very vaguely and doesn’t convey any relevant information about the study area. E.g. @page3 line#30 it is written that “The Ferozpur drainage basin has a course of 51 kilometers…). What does it mean? A drainage basin could have length, width or area, but what is course? Further ahead, @line#34 its written that “the drainage basin gets divided into two branches…” or @ line#37-38 “….. basin joined by a number of streams…..”. It shows that the author(s) has/have several doubts about drainage and drainage basins.

The author(s) should realize that not all the readers are familiar with their study area, and, therefore, he/they should give a good and informative account of the regional setting of the area. I, thus, suggest changing this chapter to “Regional Settings”. In this chapter the geological and tectonic setting of the study area should be described with the help of suitable diagrams (e.g. the regional geological map of Middlemiss, 1911, or later modified versions of it), and then the geological setting of the study area should be discussed. Moreover, the kind of figures (Figs 1.1, 1.3 and 1.5) given in the paper won’t work.

5.Its beyond understanding as why the author(s) has/have calculated geomorphic indices for a drainage basin of 6th order stream, when there are very well developed DBs of 5th, 4th, or 3rd streams. Computing the said indices and parameters for smaller, but nearly identical, drainage basins would provide much more detailed information on the tectonic geomorphology of the bigger drainage basin, which these are contained in. The information given in the present form, by taking the entire large basin as one single unit, cannot be considered reliable. It would be better to compute these parameters and indices for DBs of lower order streams (say e.g. 4th order) and then analyze the results (refer to Singh and Tandon, 2008, Agarwal and Sharma, 2011 and Goswami and Deopa, 2012).

6.The authors have calculated mountain-front sinuosity indices for 12 mountain segments, but these segments are not shown on any map. Secondly, they have taken average of these indices, but I don’t understand how this average is going to be useful for an index that has spatial relevance? The authors should better show it on the map and analyze its spatial pattern (refer to Singh and Tandon, Geomorphology2008; Goswami et al. J.Earth Syst Sci2009).

7.The author(s) should then properly analyze/synthesize the information collected from different sources, such as morphometry, geomorphic indices, drainage anomalies, geology etc.and properly discuss it to draw any conclusion.

8.Finally, the author(s) should write a crisp and succinct “abstract” of the work. He/They should refrain from making general statements such as those given in first nine lines of the present abstract.