SDI Review Form 1.

Journal Name: Journal of Engineering Research and Reports

Manuscript Number: Ms_JERR_53196
Title of the Manuscript:

A Review: Date palm irrigation methods and water resources in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Type of the Article Review Article

General guideline for Peer Review process:

This journal’s peer review policy states that NO manuscript should be rejected only on the basis of ‘lack of Novelty’, provided the manuscript is scientifically robust and technically sound.
To know the complete guideline for Peer Review process, reviewers are requested to visit this link:

(http://www.sciencedomain.org/page.php?id=sdi-general-editorial-policy#Peer-Review-Guideline)

PART 1: Review Comments

Reviewer’s comment Author’s comment (if agreed with reviewer, correct the manuscript and
highlight that part in the manuscript. It is mandatory that authors should write
his/her feedback here)
Compulsory REVISION comments A review paper that summarized the history, classification and suitability of irrigation
systems for date palm in KSA. The paper gives results for this specific country but also
some general discussions on issues. I am not sure about manner of writing – it isnot very
often to have contents with pages at the beginning.

Minor REVISION comments The overall idea is fine. The topic of this paper is relevant, timely, and of interest to the
audience of this journal. The abstract is could be more precise about the content. The
introduction provides necessary background information. The methodology described The manuscript has been thoroughly modified
briefly how authors proceeded for to finding support and significance effect of different
irrigation systems for Saud Arabia selected regions circumstances.
The supporting evidence in the paper is reliable but not up to date. The results are not
interpreted wih helping of graphs. Conclusions are scientific soundness.
I recommend to unify a writing e.g.: kingdom – Kingdom; date palm – Date Palm; type of
reference (name, year) not (HUSSAIN); Furthemore (53, 54); there are many missing dots
at the end of sentences or spaces
Optional/General comments The paper is easy to read, but I recommend to read it by natural speaker because of a few
grammatical errors or there (e.g. big and small letters at the beginning of words sometime
is not correct; ...

PART 2:

Reviewer’s comment
(If yes, Kindly please write down the ethical issues here in details)
Are there ethical issues in this manuscript?
Author’s comment (if agreed with reviewer, correct the manuscript and highlight
that part in the manuscript. It is mandatory that authors should write his/her
feedback here)

Created by: EA Checked by: ME Approved by: CEO Version: 1.6 (10-04-2018)