Өгүүллийн шүүмжээс суралцах нь 2 /Learning from comments of Reviewers and writing response/

Ангил хэл дээрх өгүүллийн шүүмжнээс суралцах нь

хариу захиа яаж бичих, шүүмжийг өгүүлэлд хэрхэн тусгах тухай

Англи хэл гэлтгүй гадаад хэл дээр өгүүлэл бичих нь хүндрэлтэй асуудал. Тухайн хэлний мэдлэг өндөр ч өгүүлбэр хоорондын уялдаа холбоо логик энэ тэрийг хангаж богино мөртлөө ойлгомжтой өгүүлбэрүүдтэй өгүүлэл бичих нь туршлага болоод эх хэлний бичгийн чадвараас их хамаардаг байх гэж бодож байна. Өгүүлэл бичих, өгүүллээ илгээх, шүүмж хүлээн авах, шүүмжийг өгүүлэлд тусгаж өгүүллээ сайжруулан буцааж илгээх, хариу захиа бичих гэх мэт өгүүлэл хэвлүүлэх бүхий л үйл явц нь өөрөө тогтсон жаягтай байна. Анх өгүүлэл бичээд өгүүлэл тэнцээгүй эсвэл ирсэн шүүмж нь хатуу үгтэй байвал зохиогч шантардаг гэлцдэг. Үнэндээ онцгүй мэдээ хүлээн авахад жаахан хямрах асуудал байх ч үүнийг өөрөө сайжрахгүй бол болохгүй юм байна гэсэн ухаанаар хүлээж авах хэрэгтэй. Өгүүллээ анх илгээхээс өмнө өөрөө болон бусад хамтрагчдаа уншуулж санал хүсэлтийг нь сонсож байх хэрэгтэй. Чанар муу өгүүлэл илгээх нь шүүмжлэгч болоод редактор нарт онцгүй мэдрэмж төрүүлэх нь ойлгомжтой /Энэ жишээ миний өгүүлэл дээр гарсан ба зарим шүүмжлэгч нь ихэд уурласан байх/. Шүүмжлэгч нар өөрсдөө судлаач бөгөөд өөрийн хийх их ажлынхаа хажуугаар таны өгүүллийг хянаж байгаа учир стресстэй байх нь аргагүй. Харин сонирхолтой, ойлгомжтой, шинэлэг өгүүлэл тэдэнд сэргээш шиг л болох байх. Энэ нийтлэлд өөрийн нэг өгүүллийн жишээн дээр суурилж өгүүллийн шүүмжийг хэрхэн хүлээж авах, хэрхэн хариу бичих, хэрхэн өгүүллээ сайжруулах тухай товч хэлэлцье.

Шүүмжний дагуу өгүүллээ засаж сайжруулж байгаа байдал.

Өгүүлэл илгээхийн өмнө

Өгүүллээ илгээхийн өмнө /хэрвээ сүүлчийн хугацаа болоогүй бол/ өөрөө сайн уншиж дахин дахин ажиллах хэрэгтэй. Бичсэн өгүүллээ дахин дахин унших нь маш уйтгартай, залхуутай ажил байдаг ч уншиж шалгах бүрд алдаа олддог юм. Тиймээс маш гярхай ажиглаж унших хэрэгтэй. Өөр хүнээр уншуулбал илүү үр дүнтэй байна. Өгүүллээ түр орхиод өөр төрлийн ажил хийж байгаад 2, 3н хоногын дараа дахиад уншиж шалгаж үзэх хэрэгтэй.  Зарим үед бидэнд хийж байгаа ажлаа хэсэг орхиод хэсэг хугацааны дараа ахиж үзэхэд ажлаа өөр нүдээр харах боломжийг олгодог. Ямар ч байсан өгүүллээ илгээхийн өмнө өөрийн бүх хүчээ шавхаж өгүүлэлдээ анхаарал тавих хэрэгтэй шүү. Өгүүлбэр, томъёо, зураг график энэ тэрээ сайн шалгах хэрэгтэй. 

Өгүүллийн шүүмж хүлээн авах

Өгүүллээ илгээсний дараа шүүмжийн хариу хэзээ ирэх нь тухайн сэтгүүлээс хамааралтай. Зарим нь их удна. Зарим нь удахгүй. удахгүй байх нь бидэнд бас ашигтай. Хэт удчихаар өгүүлэл дээрээ юу хийж явсанаа, аль аль хавтаст файлаа хадгалсанаа, аль файл нь сүүлчийнх байлаа гэх мэтээр бараг мартах шахсан байдаг.

Ерөнхийдөө сэтгүүлийн редакор сонгосон гурван шүүмжлэгчийн үнэлгээн дээр суурилж таньд өгүүллийн хянан магадлагааны хариуг өгнө. Дараах дөрвөн төрлийн хариунаас аль нэг нь таньд ирнэ. 

• Өгүүлэл байгаа хэлбэрээрээ тэнцсэн. (Accepted)
• Өгүүлэлд жаахан засвар шаардлагатай. (Minor revision)
• Өгүүлэлд бүрэн засвар шаардлагатай. (Major revision)
• Өгүүлэл тэнцээгүй. (Rejected)

Эхний хариу ирсэн тохиолдолд маш амжилттай өгүүлэл хэвлүүлэх үйл явцыг давлаа л гэсэн үг. Гэхдээ энд редактор болон шүүмжлэгчийн санал, зөвлөгөө юу байгааг сайн ойлгож өөртөө тусгаж аваарай. 

Хоёр ба гурав дахь хариу ирсэн тохиолдолд шүүмжинд бичигдсэн санал, зөвлөмжүүдийг өгүүлэлд сайтар тусгаж өгөх хэрэгтэй гэсэн үг. Анх өгүүлэл илгээхдээ маш гярхай байж чармайсан ч таны ажил эдгээр шүүмж хийсэн хүмүүсийн сэтгэлд хүрсэнгүй, бүтэхгүйнээ гэж бодох хэрэггүй. Өгүүллээ өөрчлөх өөр ямар ч хувилбар байхгүй гэж бүү бодоорой. Шүүмжний хариу янз бүрын аястай өгүүлбэрүүдтэй байх учир зоригтой, сэтгэлээр унахгүйгээр өгүүлэл дээрээ сайн ажиллаарай. Жишээг миний өгүүллийн шүүмжээс олж харах байх аа.

Тэнцээгүй гэсэн хариу ирвэл таны ажил болоогүй эсвэл аргачлал буруу, үр дүн буруу байна гэсэн үг. Бидний нэг өгүүлэл тэнцээгүй гэсэн хариу авсан юм. Гэтэл яг ижил аргачлалтай өгүүлэл хэвлэгдчихсэн байсан нь бүр сонирхолтой. Бидний гол алдаа нь үр дүнгээ сайн ойлгомжтой байдлаар харуулаагүйнх байсан гэж редактор шалтгаандаа дурьдсан байсан. Болж өгвөл энэ өгүүллээ сайжруулаад дахин тухайн сэтгүүл эсвэл өөр сэтгүүлд илгээж заавал хэвлүүлэх хэрэгтэй. Нэгэнт алтан цагаа зарсан ажлаа хий дэмий хаяж болохгүй. 

Шүүмжтэй ажиллах, өгүүллээ сайжруулах

Шүүмж бол мэргэжлийн салбарт чансаатай явж байгаа судлаачдаас ирж байгаа хамгийн том зөвлөгөө юм. Тиймээс энэ зөвлөгөөг сайтар тусгах юм бол таны өгүүлэл сайжрана уу гэхээс муудахгүй.
Шүүмжлэгч нь ихэнхдээ шүүмжээ бичихдээ дараах дарааллыг баримталдаг. Эхлээд өгүүллийн тухай ерөнхий сэтгэгдэл, чанар, ач холбогдлын тухай өгүүлээд, дараа нь гол гол алдаа эндэгдэл, санал хүсэлт, зөвлөмжөө бичнэ. Хамгийн сүүлд нь яльгүй гэж тооцогдох эсвэл шүүмжлэгч өөрөө итгэлгүй байгаа зүйлсийн талаар санал хүсэлтээ бичнэ. 

Шүүмжлэгчээс ирэх шүүмжийг нэг нэгэнгүй уншиж утгыг нь гаргаад систметээгээр өгүүллээ засаж сайжруулах хэрэгтэй. Ингэхдээ шүүмжлэгч ажиллаж байсан форматаар өгүүллээ тусад нь хадгалж байх хэрэгтэй. Засвар хийгээд ирэхээр өгүүлийн мөрний дугаарлалт солигдож дараа дараачийн сэтгэгдэлүүдийг олоход төвөгтэй болно. Өгүүлэлд засвар орсон бүх л газарт тэмдэглэгээ хийх хэрэгтэй. Энэ засвар нь таны өөрийнх эсвэл шүүмжлэгчийн дагуу засварууд байх юм. Сүүлд нь бүх зассан зүйлсийнхээ тухай ерөнхий тойм болгож редакторт захиа болгон бичихэд энэ тэмдэглэгээ тус болдог. Шүүмжээр засагдсан хэсгийг мөр хуудасны дугаартай нь тэмдэглэж байгаад шүүмжний хариу болгож яагаад засагдсан, ямар болсон тухай хариу бичнэ. 
Ерөнхийдөө шүүмжлэгчийн зөв гэдэг талаас нь өгүүлэлдээ хандах хэрэгтэй. Шүүмжний хариу бичиж байхдаа аль болох эелдэг хүлцэнгүй байж юмсыг зөв талаас нь тайлбарлах хэрэгтэй. Гоё өнгө аястай, талархасан хариу нь шүүмжлэгчдэд аятайхан сэтгэгдэл төрүүлэхээс гадна үнэхээр л шүүмжлэгчийн санаа өгүүлэлд үр ашигаа өгсөн бол талархах л ёстой. Шүүмжинд ирсэн асуулт, санал, зөвлөмж бүрт хариултыг өгч өгүүлэлд орсон засварын хуудас, мөрний дугаарыг хамт зааж өгнө.

Жишээ өгүүлэл

Энэ нь өгүүллийн шүүмжний хариу тайлбар захиа бөгөөд энэ захиаг жишээ болгож шинэ судлаачид маань санаа аваасай гэсэндээ оруулж байгаа юм. Өгүүллийн шүүмжний хариу бичих гэх мэт энэ нийтлэлд бичиж байгаа зүйлс Монгол хэл дээр интернэтээс хайгаад олдохгүй. Харин англи хэл дээр хэрхэн яаж хариу захиа бичих вэ гэвэл маш олон үр дүнгүүд олдоно. Тэдгээрийг мөн уншиж суралцаарай. Тод хараар миний бичсэн захиа, цэнхэрээр байгаа нь анх ирсэн шүүмж юм шүү. 

Dear Editor,

Authors would like to express their warm gratitude to the editor and the reviewers. Paper has been fully edited with reviewers comment and is significantly improved both in terms of importance and English. Title of the paper has been changed accordingly to the Reviewer C. We hope that the paper has been turned out to be a good version with the help of the valuable comments. With revised paper, we are giving exact responses to the all comments of each reviewer as follows. Editor and Reviewer’s comment has been colored with light blue and formatted in italic form, while our response is written in black color. We should note one thing here. First, we revised the paper according to all comments given by the reviewers. Then, we edited and structured paper again based on our discussion. In the last, we improved language of the paper.

Best Regards,   ---- Үүгээр Редакторт явуулж байгаа захиа төгсөж байгаа юм.

No.: 192

1st author: Ayurzana, Badarch

Title: AN APPLICATION OF LIQUID-SOLID PHASE CHANGE MODEL IN FREE SURFACE FLOW BY THE LATTICE BOLTZMANN METHOD: AN EXAMPLE OF MONGOLIAN SMALL HYDROPOWER PLANT

[Comments from Editor]

I have heard from the reviewers regarding your manuscript. Generally, the reviewers acknowledged the work described in this paper. However, the manuscript itself was too poor to be published. We would not accept it without major revisions. Please be advised their review comment carefully and revise it according to the comments.

The editor’s comment encouraged and stimulated us to improve the paper not only according to reviewer’s comments, but also speculating from different aspects.  

 [A. Revision required, B. Revision expected, C. Wrong/unclear statement, D. something else]

[Reviewer A]  -  Эхний шүүмжлэгчийн шүүмж

This is an interesting work of the application of Liquid-Solid-Air LBM to free surface flow in hydro power plant facility in extremely cold region. Model looks fine to reproduce the evolution of ice melting, but needs a series of verification and validation for the use of evaluating the safety of critical infrastructure. As a judgement of a reviewer, I conclude this paper is good enough to be published with minor revisions as suggested below.

Dear Reviewer A, - Хариу захиа

Thank you very much for giving a lot of important comments to improve our paper. We have reflected each of your comment as corrections. Your comments are heavily affected on the changes of the paper. The authors would like to give responses for each comment as follows.  Since the paper has changed, a number of line and pages became different from that in the comments. For the line numbering, we excluded figures and its captions.

B1      p.2, Left

Please cite the work of Rude and Thurey's group with more suitable publication, not a technical report.　They have many journal papers published.

p.2, Left, line 10, Right, line 30 and Reference 7.

Answer: We have cited an original publication of them instead of a technical report. The free surface lattice Boltzmann method was first introduced that original publication.

B2      p.2, Left

Is this cited paper (Hou et al.) that proposed the concept of total relaxation time respect to addition of the lattice fluid viscosity and local eddy viscosity ?　The pdf file of the paper does not have figures. You need more suitable citation.

Hou, S., Sterling, J., Chen, S. and Doolen, G. D. : A lattice Boltzmann subgrid model for high Reynolds number flows, arXiv preprint comp-gas/9401004, 1994.

p.2 Right, line 6 and Reference 10

Answer: Yes, This work of Hou et al. describes the concept of the Smagorinsky model for LBM. We have cited correct version of the publication and added “the Smagorinsky model” into the text in parenthesis (please see p.2, Left, line 8 from the bottom).

B3       p.2

Section 2(1) focuses on explanation of LBM of air-liquid-solid phases. What is the original research constructing this model? Who first proposed the framework of LBM of air-liquid-solid phases? Rude and Thurey's groups? No citation was found.

Answer: We have firstly proposed this framework of LBM for the air-liquid-solid phases. General path line of composition of the model is as follows. The free surface model was introduced by team of Rude and Thurey, while heat transport model was introduced by Hubert et al. We had first combined these two models in our previous publication (Ref. 5), where the solid phase was modeled by the model for porous media flow, which is known as partially bounce back boundary condition. After we found the idea to use Liquid-solid model by immersed boundary method introduced by Noble and Torczynski for the solid phase, since the partially bounce back boundary condition wasn’t suitable to apply moving boundary condition. In this paper, we have first combined those introduced models for liquid-solid phase changes occurring in a free surface flow. Citations for the used models have been inserted where they first appear (please see p.2, Left, line 7 and 8 with reference 5-7) and need to be required (please see p.2, Left, line 27, 34, and Right, line 6, 30 with references 7-10). We would like to clarify that the free surface model is a single phase model, so that the model can’t simulate physical variables of air flow. We have added citation of immersed boundary method according to reviewers comment (please see Reference 8). 

B4       p.2

What kind of boundary conditions are applied for computing the fluid facing wall and facing ice? What is "first order extrapolation boundary condition”?

Answer: Boundary conditions are added in the description of numerical test (p.3, Right, line 9 to 12) and simulation (p.4, Right, line 45-47). For example, bounce forward scheme (p.3, Right, line 9 to 12) is used for the glass side in the numerical test as slip boundary, while bounce back scheme (p.4, Right, line 45-47) is used for the concrete wall and the river bed in the numerical application as no-slip boundary. Boundary condition between liquid and solid phases is handled by the immersed boundary modification (please see p.2, Left, line 16-19). For outlet boundary condition, we made mistake as ‘first order’, it should be the second order extrapolation boundary condition. We hope that the corrections regarding this comment have been made properly.

B5       p.3 Right

You mentioned "we had examined ice melting simulations by the proposed model in closed domain and comparison of those simulations with other studies had been reported 5)." But I could not find no verification of the numerical test of "ice melting by pouring water" in section (3). How did you verify the model?

Answer: The first sentence in Section 3 is describing our previous work on liquid-solid phase changes and the reference is cited as 5), where reader can find some validations. The second paragraph is trying to show validation of the numerical model with the experiment using a test. The test is the ice melting by poured water. We had carried out a laboratory experiment and numerical simulation for this test and results are compared in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. We know ice melting simulation is still challenging issue and validation is also difficult and insufficient. In this work validation is only made by the temporal changes of melting front of ice cube. On the Fig.4 (a), we can see dashed curve, which is the experimentally defined temporal change of melting front. To be sufficient, we need to measure temperature distribution and velocity in the experiment and compare it with the numerical result. We are looking for a way to measure temperature distribution with infrared camera, progress of which will be appeared in our future work. According to comment, we have added improved the readability of the sentence (please see p.3, Left, line 23-26 and Fig.3 and Fig.4).

B6        Fig. 6

Figure indicates that the ice cover seems to move to left and right. But you mentioned "The ice cover was assumed to be no move and no crush" in the text. Figure needs revision.

Answer: Yes, reviewer’s right. Thank you for pointing this out. Figure 6 was unclear to represent the elements. We have revised the figure to be clear; where we can see the level of ice cover and its continuity in length (please see p.5, Figure 6). The ice cover was really assumed to be no move and no crash in the simulation.

B7        p. 5 Right

In the first paragraph, you described as case 1, 2 and 3. But Figure 8 only indicates case (a), (b), (c). This is slightly confusing.

Answer: Indeed it is confusing for reader.  We have edited caption of the Fig. 8 by cases.

B8           Fig.7 and Fig. 8

It looks no open water exists in case (a).  In other words, no hole was created by melting ice cover.

Answer: Yes, reviewer’s right. Water temperature in case 1 was insufficient to melt ice cover, so that the open water did not form in this case. We have added explanation about it to make it conceivable (please see p.5, Left, line 1-10).

B9          Section 4

The abstract says "open water forming mechanism in the downstream channel of the hydropower plant was successfully simulated". But no "open water forming mechanism" is discussed. How was the hole created? Where did you discuss the evolution mechanism of hole to create open water?

Answer: Yes, indeed we haven’t discussed about mechanism of the open water forming in organized way. We gladly accept the comment and added discussions about the mechanism (please see p.5, Left, line 27 to Right, line 9). This comment revealed important statement and made discussions rich in the paper.

[Reviewer B] - Хоёр дахь Шүүмжлэгчийн шүүмж

1. A, whole

The reviewer found many non-explicit and even incomprehensive sentences as follows. Please check again the whole manuscript and revise to improve readability.

Dear Reviewer B, - Хариу захиа

Thank you very much. We accept that our paper is too poor in English as production of our poor English writing skill. We have incorporated with the comments as follows. Because of the changes in the paper, a number of lines will be different from the old version. Line numbering is ignored the figures and its captions.

1-1: abstract L2

Did the author mean “the numerical model of the liquid-solid phase changes in the free surface flow was proposed in this paper”?

Answer: Yes. This paper introduces the model for the liquid-solid phase changes in free surface flow. We have polished up the sentence according to the comment (please see the abstract, line 1 to 7).

1-2: abstract L10

ice in downstream ? ice downstream

Answer: Thanks for correction. We have changed it with ‘downstream ice’ in the abstract, line 10.

1-3: p.2, Left, L2

We ? This paper. The first person should be avoided for the written research paper in general.

Answer: We took advice and have changed some sentences, which start with ‘we’ (please see new version of those sentences: p.2, Left, line 1-2, p.3, Left, Section 3, line 1-4 and p.6, Left, line 1-6 etc.). There are still some sentences started with ‘we’ and proofreading expert says they are fine. If it should be removed completely, we will change the sentences.

1-4: p.2, Left, e.g. L10-19

Most of future tenses used in this paper had better to be altered to the present tenses except for the description about the future issue of this paper.

Answer: Thank you. We have edited sentences that can be altered to be in the present tense. Please see the edition of them in p.2, Left, line 5 to 19. Also in p.3, right, line 1, sentence is altered to appropriate tenses. 

1-5: p.2, Right, L14

variables?

Answer: Yes, it would be variables. (p.2, Right, line 12)

1-6: p.3, Right, L21

The reviewer could not understand the following sentence especially what “robust way” exactly meant here: “evolution of the ice melting front against time is the quantity to compare numerical results in simplest but robust way.”

Answer: Author would like to say robust means the physically concrete way. We have removed this word from the text and sentence was restructured (please see p.3, Right, 12-15). Also ‘robust’ was used in the abstract and we removed it accordingly to the comment.

1-7: p.4, Left, L6

Was the description of “In the experiment, over flowing water from glass was fully attached to the glass wall.” for the left side of the glass?

Answer: The meaning of the sentence is right and we have revised sentences (please see from p.3, Right, line 27 to p.4, Left, line 4). Water surface in experiment was only observed and did not include in any figure of this paper. Reviewer also commented about it on the comment 4: A, and so that we included water surface in experiment in Fig.3 (b), where we can see overflowing water in experiment.  In the numerical simulation, water was adhered to the left side of the glass.

1-8: p.4, Left, L44

The reviewer could not understand what the authors wanted to say: “In other words, water discharge was constant and is only depending on the river flow rate.”

Answer: This was indeed our ambiguity and we have edited the sentence (please see p.4, Right, line 3-4).

1-9: p.5, Left, L3

Please define what the “open water” exactly means.

Answer: We have included definition of open water in text (please see p.4, Right, line 8-11).

1-10: p.5, Left, L3

2. B, p.3, Left, the last part of session 2.

“As free surface … of that cells” looks the author applied an existing method. If so, the previous research for free surface treatment should be referred.

Answer: We have structured sentences and cited publications into the text (please see p.3, Left, line 15-20).

3. B, p.3, the introduction of session 3.

The reviewer believe that “Macroscopic numerical simulation …and appropriate analysis had been made.” should be included in the 1. Introduction.

Answer: According to comment, we decided to delete some part of sentences, which should be in Introduction. So we decided that remaining sentence (please see p.3, Left, the first sentence of the Section 3) better to be in numerical test section to invite reader’s attention to the numerical test while saying what we have done. Introduction of this paper is trying to introduce problem about the ice in hydropower plant. So we thought that it better not to include the review of the numerical simulation of phase changes.

4. A, p.3, Right, L19

How about temperature of surrounding air, the glass and the bottom boundary?

Answer: We have added description about air temperature and thermal boundary conditions (Please see p.3, Right, line 5-9). The air temperature was 25°C and we assumed that there is no heat exchange between the water and glass and between the water and the bottom, since the heat exchanges between them is small to be ignored in the simulation.

5: A, p.4, Left, L10

Please add the discussion about the reason why the asymmetry result was calculated. In addition, the water surface in the experiment, which must be recorded, should be compared with calculated results.

Answer: Thank you for this good comment. According to the comment, we have added discussions about the possible reasons of the asymmetry result (please see p. 4, Left, line 14-27) obtained by the numerical simulation. For the second part of the comment, we did not show experimental water surface into figure 3, because it wasn’t visible because of the velocity vector. So, we decided to include it lower part of the figures (please see Fig.3 (b)): on the temperature field, since there we can see simulated water surface with temperature field. 

6: A, p.4, Left, L18

The reviewer would like to confirm if the shape of glass was cylinder and simulation was conducted in the vertical-plan 2D. If so, the comparison in Figure 4 should be revised, considering the volume rate in the experiment.

Answer: In the experiment, glass and ice was a cube, so we thought that 3D experiment is equivalent with the 2D numerical simulation. We confirm that the shape of glass is a cube, not a cylinder. We think no revision is needed for Fig. 4, if the reviewer agrees.   

7: A, p.4, 4(1) Problem statement

The reviewer believes the most part of the (1) problem statement: “The study objective, Tosontsengel hydropower…power in winter time.” gave the motivation of this study and had better to be included in Introduction of this paper, at least, moved before 2.

Answer: Yes, reviewer’s right. We have moved it to Introduction section (please see p.1, Left, Second paragraph of the introduction) and restructured there with the other sentences.

8: A, p.5

The description in p.5 is poor and needs to be polished significantly. For example:

According to the comment, this part is fully edited and restructured to improve readability. We would like to show some change for the comment as follows.

8-1: p.5, Left, L6

Please indicate how the authors say “Low rate heat … simulation.” Which figure did the authors used?

Answer: We have revised and made it readable sentence (please see p.5, Left, line 8-10) connecting with previous sentence.

8-2: p.5, Left, L17

The reviewer could not understand what the authors wanted to say here: “The discharge given … in Fig.6”

Answer: We could not express what we wanted to say here. So we have removed this sentence to avoid ambiguity.

8-3: p.5, Left, L19

The reviewer believes the description of “The discharge given … in Fig.6” should move to the session for calculation conditions.

Answer: We have removed this sentence because of unclear statement. Since it was about the flow rate, we revised the sentences about initial flow condition accordingly (please see p.4, Right, line 40-42).

[Reviewer C] - Гуравдахь шүүмжлэгчийн шүүмж

I cannot support publication of this article.

One and the only reason letting the present reviewer to arrive at this conclusion is severe deficiencies of writing skill in English. It indeed prevents the reviewer from judging the worth of the present study. Note that, the peer review system is NOT free English proofreading services. It is author's responsibility to ensure that the manuscript presents a not only technically but also grammatically correct copy.

Look at 3.2 of the "Instruction for Submission" and 6.1 of the "Guidelines for Authors".

Below, I will present some proof of the deficiencies.

Note that, these are just a few examples.

------------------------------------------------------------------

* The title sounds unreasonable. A possible candidate is:

An application of LBM to liquid-solid phase change in free-surface flow.

Answer: Thank you very much for the good suggestion of the title. We retitled the paper.  

* The first sentence of the abstract also sounds strange. It could be:

The presence of ice causes severe problems to small hydropower plants in...

Answer: We have revised the first sentence of the abstract as above.

* The second sentence of the second paragraph in the section 1:

"Although, predictions or modeling of the ice problem are ..."

Answer: We have revised this sentence to improve readability (please see the second sentence of third paragraph in the section 1).

I cannot understand how this sentence connects to the first sentence:

"On-site observation and countermeasure work..."

Answer: We have edited sentences as readable (please see the first sentence of the third paragraph in the section 1).

*The third sentence is more terrible:

"Numerically, ice ... can be emphasized as the interaction of ice and free surface flow ..."

Is ice emphasized as interaction of ice and free surface??? What does it mean?

Answer: It is indeed terrible to read. We have improved the sentence (please see p.1, Left, line 7-9).

Since this journal has limited opportunities for revision, I conclude that it is not suitable to consider the publication.

Dear Reviewer C, - Хариу захиа

The statement of the reviewer is exactly true, even it is strict. It is well proved that our ability to write scientific paper is a far from mature. We know that peer review system is not free English editing system. Really sorry for submitting poor paper and we learnt lot of thing and improve ourselves afterward. We also believe that peer review system gives free opportunity to authors to improve the paper. We think that we took the advantage of the peer review system. Thank you very much for your comments.

Энэ өгүүлэл 3 шүүмжлэгчээс 2 засвар хийх шаардлагатай, 1 тэнцээгүй гэсэн үнэлгээ авч 2:1 харьцаатайгаар өгүүлэлд загвар хийгдэхээр болсон юм. Эхний засвар дээрхээр өндөрлөж хоёр дахь шүүмжин дээр тэнцсэн гэсэн хариу авч байгаа хэлбэрээрээ хэвлэгдэхээр болсон юм. 

Буулт хийх ёстой газраа буулт хийж, шүүмжлэгч таны ажлыг ойлгоогүй бол ойлгуулах талаас нь дахин тайлбарлаж захиагаа бичих хэрэгтэй. Захианд урт богино гэсэн асуудал байхгүй бөгөөд хэлний хувьд яг таг нарийн байх албагүй. Гэхдээ хүн уншихад ойлгомжтой байх хэрэгтэй. 

Англи хэлээр өгүүлэл бичих нь таны ажлыг болон таныг олон улсын түвшинд авчирч бусадтай хөл нийлүүлэн ажиллах, судлах боломжийг олгоно. Таны энэ хувь нэмэр бол Англи хэл дээрх мэдлэгийн санг зузаатгана. Харин хийсэн ажлынхаа тухай Монгол хэл дээр ном болгон бичиж Монгол мэдлэгийн санг өргөтгөж байгаарай гэж хүсье ээ.