# How to make quality peer-review?

A quality peer-review generally includes these parts: (1) A summary of the research and your overall impression (an overview of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses); (2) Evidence and examples (major and minor issues); (3) Other points.

(图片来自网络)

Example 1

Title: Numerical analysis of landslide-generated debris flow on July 3, 2021, in Izu Mountain area, Shizuoka County, Japan

I would like to thank the authors for submitting to the Journal of Mountain Science. The authors have presented a ‘’A numerical simulation on the event of 2021 in Izu Mountain area were presented in this study. The Pore water pressure was introduced as one of the main reasons for this disaster’’. The work is interesting. It can be considered after a moderate revision by considering the following points.

1-The author needs to provide an accurate and detailed description of the numerical modelling. This helps document the physics, be it the numerical method, approximations, etc. used to solve the problem. Hence even if the author is able to arrive at a satisfactory result, the paper that publishes the work has to provide an in-depth description of the numerical method used to solve the problem. The reviewer has experienced that often this is more valuable than the actual results, as this information is vital to identify the shortcomings of a past study when a future researcher tries to improve upon it. Overall, the numerical modelling section needs to be expanded and clarify the mentioned points.

2- The Motivations of this study are not clear. What are the limitations of the study?

3- Why was 30 m x 30 m selected for DEM?

4- Authors considered 4 different time steps t1=180 s t2=360 s t3=540 s t4=720 s, what are the reasons for choosing these timesteps? Why they are not more timesteps? This is very important.

1- Line 24-Page-1: Please add a reference for this statement. ‘’ With the frequency of extreme weather, the impact of flash flood/debris flow events around the world is increasing. During a strong rainfall event, flash floods/debris flow are often accompanied by landslides.’’

2-Line37-Page-1: Please reword this line. ‘’ At present, antecedent rainfall is more and more studied in debris flow assessment (Guo et al. 2013).’’

3-Line09-Page-2: There is an extra space before ‘’We’’.

5-Figure-1 Please add more details/explanations to the caption of this figure. Especially for A, B, C and D inside the figure.

6-Line 29: Please delete ‘’to’’ from parentheses.

7- Rewrite these lines: ‘’As of 17:00 p.m. on July 3, the 72 hours rainfall accumulation was 409.5 mm, almost 1.7 times the average rainfall in July’’

8-Figure-3 Please add more details/explanations to the caption of this figure. The font size of axes numbers needs to be increased.

10-Line08- Page 5: Please rewrite this line” Through the video and debris flow video to determine the scope of the affected houses”

11-Figure-4,5 and 6 Please add more details/explanation to the caption of these figures.

12-In the text in some lines ‘’second (s)’’ was written without the space e.g., 720s and sometimes with the space like 360 s. This needs to be consistent.

13-Discussion-Please reword these lines ‘’ It starts raining on Izu Mountain at 1 am on July 1, 2021. More than 250 mm of rain had accumulated before July 3. The debris flow broke out between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. on July 3, with the maximum rainfall intensity of 27 mm/h.’’

14- Page-4- ‘’There are many related factors of pore pressure ratio.’’ Please name some of these factors.

15- In order to avoid some minor mistakes, it is recommended to carefully check the manuscript, including language, figures and tables, etc

Example 2

The manuscript “Stability analysis of complex terrain slope based on multi-source cloud fusion”  presents a method combining unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and 3D laser scanner measurements to obtain a high-precision digital elevation model (DEM). Then, a 3D finite element analysis is performed to asses the stability of a landslide prone area in the Shaanxi province (China). Finally, authors discuss the stability of four 2D representative slopes and the sensitivity of the latter to soil strength parameters.

Overall, the article is well presented and I agree with the authors that a precise topographic model and  a 3D analysis is needed when investing complex 3D terrain slope.

However, I am not convinced about the novelty of the work. As it is, the manuscript looks more like a technical paper than an research article. Some other comments supporting this decision are reported below.

1) Authors performed a 3D FEM analysis proving that the investigated area is stable also when considering a heavy rainfall condition or seismic action. This is the only result that I can extrapolate from their 3D model results. I fail to see the novelty or the possible academic contribution of that.

2) In Sec.4.3 authors present the stability analysis of four representative 2D slopes. I’m not fully convinced by the distinction made by the authors on the base of the 2D slope geometry.

In addition, the failure surface is observed in the most inclined area in each of the considered slopes. This is also pointed out by the authors (P5-L29-L30). Therefore, it seems to me that the global shape of the slope (e.g. convex, concave, convex-concave, etc..) is not the main criterion to asses the slope stability.

3) I am not convinced that the of the analysis made with respect to the soil strength parameters is of academic relevance. It is not new that reducing the soil strength the slope becomes less stable. For instance, it may be of interested to discuss if the reduction of soil strength parameters (which, for instance, can be due to soil weathering) leads to a modification of the failure surface or to the prone to slide area.

4) English should be improved (there are several typos and grammatical errors)

- P1-L45-47: “Numerical modelling has been an important method for slope stability analysis, so it is crucial for landslide or landslide-prone area to establish an accurate numerical model, which entirely depends on high-precision topography”. I agree with the fact that having a good 3D reconstruction of the topography is fundamental, but I do not agree with this statement (the word “ENTIRELY” is the problem here). For instance, what about the choice of the numerical parameters? or the discretazion of the FEM model? I suppose that they may also have a strong impact on the stability analysis.

- P2-L16: it is not clear what “these defects” are?

- Sec. 2.1: what is the “whale ditch”?

- P4-L26: please correct the unit of the gravity

- P4-L29: why did you choose this precise value (0.2g) for the peak acceleration?

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-314423-1339004.html

## 全部精选博文导读

GMT+8, 2024-4-19 13:03