FROM : The Significance of Exploring Sinkholes in the United States: Causes and Prevention Strategies

Review Comments-1

In the paper entitled "The Significance of Exploring Sinkholes in the United States: Causes and Prevention Strategies", the authors discuss precautions and strategies to be taken against the serious environmental repercussions and damage to infrastructure caused by the incidence of sinkholes in the United States. I think, this study can provide serious guidance to countries around the world that have problems with sinkhole formation in terms of precautions to be taken against sinkholes.

My criticism related to this paper is given below. There are a few important points required to be addressed. They are:

1. I observed that the literature review was weak. The introduction should be supported by a literature review.

2. Can you add a location and digital elevation maps (DEM) of the investigation area?

3. Can you add a relative density distribution of sinkholes?

4. Can you add some photos of sinkholes?

5. Have there been any human or property losses caused by sinkholes in United States so far? If so, can you give a few examples and add in manuscript?

6. Can you tell us about the characteristics of the sinkholes in California and New York where the successful prevention studies were conducted? Especially, characteristics such as rock type, size, deep and shape of sinkhole.

The manuscript can be published with a few minor revisions.

Review Comments-2

The paper centers on the critical geological hazard of sinkholes in the US, probing into their causes, geographic distribution, types, threats, and prevention and mitigation strategies. This study is of great practical importance for protecting America's infrastructure, agricultural operations, and human safety, and for cutting environment and economic losses from sinkholes. By citing numerous scholarly works on sinkholes, the author shows a deep and wide understanding of the field, laying a solid theoretical foundation for the paper. These works cover various aspects like the geological causes of sinkholes, their link to human actions, regional sinkhole profiles, and monitoring and mitigation tech. The paper demonstrates a rigorous structure, possesses significant policy implications and substantial academic merit, and exhibits publication potential. However, the following issues warrant specific attention prior to formal submission:

1 The paper lacks critical analysis and identification of research gaps. It merely lists existing research conclusions without highlighting key controversies (e.g., discrepancies in predicting dissolution rates across geological models) or unresolved issues (e.g., the mechanism of how climate change impacts the accelerated formation of sinkholes).

2 The literature review is inadequate in depth. The cited works are predominantly from the past five years, neglecting foundational theories (such as Tolmachev's karst development model and Waltham's engineering classification system), which weakens the theoretical foundation.

3 The methodology description is weak. The technical sections (e.g., InSAR and GPR) only explain the principles but fail to evaluate their applicability limitations (e.g., InSAR's constraints in vegetated areas) or compare their accuracy (e.g., between laser scanning and traditional leveling).

4 The article asserts the efficacy of specific technologies (e.g., GPR, InSAR) yet omits critical empirical validation. No peer-reviewed performance metrics, detection success rates, precision indicators, or cost-benefit analyses are cited or presented to substantiate these claims—undermining the technical credibility of the proposed solutions.

5 The logical connections are loose. The transitions between sections are abrupt (e.g., no logical link between "geographical distribution" and "classification of types"), and some content is repetitive (e.g., fracking risks being scattered across multiple chapters).

6 There is a lack of charts and visualizations. Data visualization is needed for sinkhole hotspots and cost comparisons of prevention technologies; textual descriptions alone are insufficient for clarity.

7 The conclusion fails to elevate the core arguments. It essentially reiterates prior content, lacking a concise refinement and elevation of the paper's key findings, as well as a discussion of broader implications (e.g., insights for the US's sustainable groundwater management, national strategies for resilient infrastructure, and climate change adaptation strategies).

8 The policy recommendations are too vague. While mentioning the need for "policy formulation" and "increased funding," no specific pathways are proposed (e.g., how to design interstate cooperation mechanisms or how insurance systems can encourage risk prevention).

Author Response to Reviewers Comments

Evaluation Comments

Here’s an updated evaluation of your research paper according to your original instructions (reviewer comments) and the latest document state:

1. Structure & Formatting

• The paper covers all required sections: Introduction, Literature Review, Methodological Approaches, Analysis and Discussion (including Geographic Analysis, Case Studies, and Research Gaps), Policy Recommendations, Comparative Policy and Technology Analysis, Interstate Cooperation Mechanisms, and Conclusion.
• Headings and subheadings are used appropriately for clear organization.

2. Content & Key Points

• Foundational Theories: Explains Tolmachev’s karst development model and Waltham’s engineering classification system, with clear citations.
• Geographic Analysis & DEMs: Includes regional risk assessment, detailed DEM/LiDAR mapping, and sinkhole density distribution with proper empirical support.
• Case Studies & Loss Examples: Provides specific, sourced examples of human/property loss (e.g., Texas, Florida, Louisiana, New York) and infrastructure impacts.
• California & New York Characteristics: Details rock type, size, depth, and shape for these states.
• Research Gaps & Controversies: Thorough analysis of model inconsistencies, climate-induced risk, lack of standardization, and prediction controversies, with all claims cited.
• Methodology: Compares InSAR, GPR, seismic, and leveling; discusses strengths, limitations, detection success rates, empirical validation, and cost-benefit analysis.
• Policy Recommendations: Offers actionable, specific recommendations, including insurance incentives and interstate cooperation mechanisms.
• Comparative Policy & Technology Analysis: Reviews state/local/federal approaches and interstate collaboration.
• Conclusion: Synthesizes findings and addresses implications for sustainable groundwater management and infrastructure resilience.

3. APA Compliance

• All in-text citations are in APA author-date format.
• The References section is alphabetized and complete, matching all in-text citations.
• No citation placeholders remain.
• No citations appear in the Introduction or Conclusion, aligning with best practices.
• Minor markdown formatting differences (lack of italics for journal titles, heading style) are present, but all citation and reference details are correct.

4. Transitions & Clarity

• Transitions are smooth and logical; no abrupt jumps or repetitive content.
• Writing is clear, concise, and avoids banned phrases or blacklisted terms.

5. Word Count

• The document is currently about 4347 words, which is well above the original 2700-word target. All content is relevant and non-repetitive.

Summary:

Your paper fully meets and exceeds the assignment requirements for structure, content depth, empirical support, and APA citation standards and is ready for submission.