Dear Drs. Rahayu et al.,

Thank you for the submission of your very interesting manuscript, “Unveiling Transboundary Challenges in The Ciliwung River Flood Management” (NHESS-2023-85).

As you know, two reviewers have now provided detailed reviews, which you have replied in thoughtful detail to. Both reviewers recommended minor revisions. However, I also read your manuscript and found that there are significant shortcomings (please see my comments below) and therefore I would like to invite you to submit a major revised version of your manuscript.

Would you please also provide an ‘author’s reply’ to the reviewers (feel free to use the same words that you used in what you have already uploaded). Please can you also include a track changes document between the old manuscript and the new one (you can include this as part of your ‘author’s reply’).

In addition to the suggestions from the reviewers, I would like to suggest the following ‘major’ issues which requires substantial improvement:

1. Novelty of the Study: While your research presents an intriguing case study, its novelty remains unclear. It's essential to articulate what makes your work unique, both at the outset and within the discussion. Ask yourself, 'Why should someone outside my research area find this study valuable?'. If you were to present your findings to a global audience, what would they glean from your work? Are there insights they can draw from your methods and their application? What is the novel contribution, and how can it benefit them?

2. Broader Context: The manuscript currently lacks a connection to the broader literature and works of other researchers. It's crucial to establish where your study fits within this larger context and how it relates to existing knowledge.

3. Technical Definitions: In both the Abstract and Introduction sections, you've used the acronym "MICMAC analysis" without offering an immediate definition. It's advisable to introduce and explain any technical term upon its first mention, ensuring readers have clarity from the start.

4. Results Section: The current presentation of your results is insufficient. Although you've detailed four methodological steps, the results section only displays a figure. This section should be more expansive, delving into the outcomes of each step. Considering its brevity, you might consider integrating the results with the discussion.

5. Placement of Recommendations: Including recommendations within the discussion section seems out of place. Instead, it may be more effective to weave a succinct version of the recommendations into the conclusion.

6. Reference Accuracy: There appear to be inconsistencies and errors in your citations. For instance, in the recommendations section, you cite "(Neuvel & van den Brink, 2009)." and "(Budiyono et al., 2016)" without full integration into the text. Please review and ensure all references are appropriately cited and formatted.

Some of my comments may intersect with those of the reviewers.

I look forward to seeing the next version of your manuscript which I will then send out for further review to either the previous reviewers (if they agree) or new reviewers or I can make the decision myself.

Regards
Animesh Gain
NHESS Executive Editor

Dear Drs. Rahayu et al.,

I appreciate your submission of the revised manuscript titled “Unveiling Transboundary Challenges in The Ciliwung River Flood Management” (NHESS-2023-85) to our journal.

Upon review, I acknowledge the improvements made over the previous version. However, there remain significant areas that require further revision. Although currently classified as a 'minor revision', please be advised that without addressing these key issues, the manuscript may not be accepted for publication. In this light, I urge you to consider submitting a more substantially revised version.

Additionally, for a clearer comparison, please include a document highlighting the changes made from the previous submission to the new version.

I would like to draw your attention to the following major concerns that need substantial refinement:

The manuscript predominantly reads as a case study. Unfortunately, as it stands, such a format does not align with the publication criteria of NHESS. To move towards acceptance, your manuscript must establish a stronger connection with the broader body of literature and the works of other researchers in this field. It is imperative to identify and articulate the global research gaps your study addresses, not just those pertaining to your specific study area.

Your manuscript must clearly demonstrate its unique contribution and relevance in a global context. Consider how your findings would be perceived and valued by an international audience. What insights could they derive from your methodologies and their applications? It is crucial to explicitly state the novel aspects of your work and how these contribute to the broader scientific community.

I am eager to review the next version of your manuscript, upon which I will base my decision.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Best regards,

Animesh Gain
Executive Editor, NHESS

Dear Drs. Rahayu et al.,

Thanks for your revised submission of the manuscript titled “Unveiling Transboundary Challenges in The Ciliwung River Flood Management” (NHESS-2023-85) to our journal. Although you made an attempt, the manuscript may not be accepted for publication unless you make a substantial revision addressing the following major comment:

The manuscript predominantly reads as a case study. Unfortunately, as it stands, such a format does not align with the publication criteria of NHESS. To move towards acceptance, your manuscript must establish a stronger connection with the broader body of literature and the works of other researchers in this field. It is imperative to identify and articulate the global research gaps your study addresses, not just those pertaining to your specific study area. You should specify your novel contribution in the context of global research, not just based on your case study.

Your manuscript must clearly demonstrate its unique contribution and relevance in a global context. Consider how your findings would be perceived and valued by an international audience. What insights could they derive from your methodologies and their applications? It is crucial to explicitly state the novel aspects of your work and how these contribute to the broader scientific community.

If you do not reflect the above two major comments in the next revision round, the paper might be rejected.

Best regards,

Animesh Gain
Executive Editor, NHESS

Dear Drs. H.P., Rahayu et al.,

I am pleased to inform you that the revised version of your manuscript, "Unveiling Transboundary Challenges in River Flood Risk Management: Learning from the Ciliwung River Basin (NHESS-2023-85)," can now be accepted for publication in our journal Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS). Please inform your co-authors of the editorial decision.

You will soon be contacted by the journal publication office for the preparation of the final version of your manuscript. Please respond promptly to the requests of the publication office, as this will condition the time of your publication, and read carefully any copy-editing recommendations they make. Let me remind you that the final publication of your paper on the journal website is subject to the payment of the appropriate service charges. Also, do not forget that as an open-access journal, you can freely distribute your paper once it is published.

I take this opportunity to thank you and your co-authors for selecting Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS) for publication in your scientific work. I look forward to receiving further contributions to our journal from you and your co-authors.

Sincerely,

Animesh Gain
NHESS Chief Executive Editor