PWAT-D-25-00218

Application of an integrated GIS-AHP water quality index to evaluate the groundwater suitability for irrigation in a coastal aquifer in northeastern Algeria

PLOS Water

Dear Dr. AbdelRahman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Water. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Water's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 16 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at water@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pwat/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Vasanthavigar Murugesan, M.Sc., Ph.D.,https://orcid.org/my-orcid?orcid=0000

Academic Editor

PLOS Water

Journal Requirements:

1. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/water/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOS’s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOS’s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email or email the journal office and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility.

Potential Copyright Issues:

Figure 1, 5, 6, 8: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions.

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps:

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

As per reviewer suggestion manuscript need major revision.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Water’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Water does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: In my opinion this paper is an interesting study and authors have assessed groundwater suitability for irrigation in the Collo Plain, Algeria. The integration of GIS with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to develop a weighted Irrigation Water Quality Index (IWQI) is a robust approach that adds significant value over traditional, unweighted indices. The research addresses a relevant environmental and agricultural issue, and the conclusions are generally supported by the data. However, the manuscript requires revisions to improve clarity, correct inconsistencies, and strengthen the discussion before it can be considered for publication.

Dear authors, thank you for submitting the manuscript to PLOS Water journal. Its topic is very interesting. However, the current version of the paper suffers from a number of weaknesses related to the empirical strategy used and the English languish need to improve. I have the following comments/questions for the authors:

Major Comments

1. Abstract: The abstract could be more specific. Include a line or two about the novelty and the research gap that you are addressing as a first paragraph before the aim of the study. I suggest the authors should organize the abstract as well as main text in four sections, namely: scope, objectives, methods, results, conclusions. Also, abstract section should be completed with the results of the study. What are the practical implications of your research (how can the results be utilized by e.g., readers, community)?

2. Introduction: The introduction section was suggested to make it concise as much as possible. Rather than addressing this comment, authors further enhance the length of introduction by adding, so many necessary information. It must be made better.

o Add some facts and figures of groundwater quality around the globe in your introduction.

o The research gap and the research objectives were not clear in the submission. A clear list of previous studies should be provided to clearly identify the research gap in the research and also highlight the novelty of the research.

o The literature review is extensive but reads like a list of summaries rather than a critical synthesis building a case for the research gap. The specific novel contribution of this study should be more sharply defined against the cited works.

o Please add some recent article to make your introduction more attractive and stronger. I propose to add this survey method in the overview section of the introduction section, based on the latest literature.

https://doi.org/10.3390/w15193495

https://doi.org/10.3390/w15081496

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-025-02548-z

https://doi.org/10.3390/w15040694

https://doi.org/10.3390/w15020289

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41748-025-00851-4

https://doi.org/10.3390/w15010182

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-022-01770-9

3. Justification of AHP Weights and Expert Elicitation: The AHP is central to this study, yet the process of assigning the pairwise comparison scores (Table 3) is not sufficiently described. The manuscript states it is based on "subject matter experts or decision-makers," but no details are provided. Who were these experts? How many were consulted? Was a structured elicitation process (e.g., a questionnaire, Delphi method) used to arrive at a consensus? The high weight given to EC (37%) is logical, but the rationale for the specific scores (e.g., why EC is 3 times more important than %Na, and 5 times more than KR) needs a stronger, referenced justification based on irrigation agronomy to ensure the weights are not arbitrary.

4. Clarity and Consistency of the IWQI Formula: The core equation for IWQI (Eq. 14: IWQI = ∑ (wj * Oj / Sj) * 100) is ambiguous. The description of Sj as the "standard reference value" is unclear. Does Sj refer to the maximum permissible value, the ideal value, or a value from a specific standard (e.g., FAO, WHO)? Furthermore, the formula implies that a higher observed value (Oj) always leads to a higher (worse) IWQI, which is true for parameters like EC and Na. However, for a parameter like Total Hardness (TH), higher values (within the "hard" or "very hard" range) are not necessarily detrimental for irrigation; the primary concern is sodicity, not hardness. Applying the same formula to all parameters without a normalization function that accounts for whether a high value is "bad" or "good" could introduce error. This must be clarified and justified.

5. Methodological Description of Spatial Analysis: The manuscript states that the IDW (Inverse Distance Weighting) method was used for interpolation. However, the critical parameters for IDW (e.g., power parameter, search radius, number of neighbors) are not specified. These choices significantly impact the resulting spatial maps. A brief justification for the chosen parameters and an evaluation of the interpolation accuracy (e.g., through cross-validation) would greatly strengthen the reliability of the spatial distribution results presented in Figures 5, 6, and 8.

6. Discussion Lacks Depth and Direct Comparison: The discussion section is somewhat superficial. It correctly identifies the main findings but does not delve deeply into the mechanistic reasons behind the spatial patterns. For instance, the discussion of anthropogenic pressures (untreated wastewater, over-abstraction) is mentioned but not convincingly linked to the hydrochemical data. Is there evidence of nitrate or phosphate pollution supporting the wastewater claim? Furthermore, while some regional studies are cited, a direct, quantitative comparison of the calculated IWQI values and classifications with those from other similar coastal aquifers in the Mediterranean or elsewhere would provide crucial context for the severity of the situation in the Collo Plain.

7. Inconsistent Terminology for IWQI Classes: The manuscript uses two different sets of class names for the IWQI. The Methods section (page 12) defines the classes as: Excellent, Good, Poor, Very Poor, Unsuitable. However, in the Results (page 21) and Discussion, the class "Poor" is frequently replaced with "Suboptimal." For example, the abstract states "13.3% were identified as suboptimal," while the results state "56.66%... were categorized as poor quality." This inconsistency is confusing. The authors must adhere to a single, clearly defined set of class names throughout the manuscript.

8. Weaknesses in the Correlation Analysis Presentation: Figure 7 (the correlation matrix) is critically important but is currently poorly presented and likely contains errors. The numerical values are extremely small and difficult to read. More importantly, many of the correlation values appear counter-intuitive or incorrect. For example, the matrix shows a strong negative correlation between IWQI and EC (-0.78), which is logically impossible if EC is the most heavily weighted parameter contributing to a higher (worse) index. Similarly, the correlation between Na and IWQI is shown as 0.92 in the text but appears as 0.92 in one part of the matrix and 0.48 in another. This figure must be recreated clearly, and the underlying correlation analysis must be thoroughly checked for accuracy.

9. Underplayed Limitations and Future Work: The limitations section is too brief and generic. The manuscript should explicitly acknowledge the limitations of the AHP methodology (subjectivity in weight assignment), the single-season sampling (which ignores seasonal agricultural and hydrological variations), and the spatial resolution of sampling. The "Future work" section should be more specific, suggesting concrete actions like high-frequency seasonal monitoring, integration of soil data to validate the IWQI's agronomic impact, and the use of numerical groundwater flow and transport models to predict future salinization trends.

10. Conclusions:

o Huge modifications are required. Please make sure your ‘conclusions’ section underscores the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations; underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results.

o Please revise your conclusion part into more details. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations; underscore the scientific value added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results.

o Concise the text in conclusion and add future work in order to recommend your work in this section.

________________________________________

Minor Comments

1. Abstract and Keywords: The keyword "IQWI" is a typo and should be corrected to "IWQI" to match the term used throughout the paper.

2. Introduction: The introduction is well-written but could be more focused. The link between the general SDGs and the specific, localized problem of the Collo Plain could be made more concise to quickly orient the reader to the study's specific contribution.

3. Figure and Table Quality:

o Figures 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are referenced but were not included in the provided text. The review is based on the assumption they are present in the full submission. Their clarity and professionalism should be ensured.

o The flowchart in Figure 2 is a good summary but lacks visual polish and uses non-standard formatting (e.g., "Multi-criteria weighting using GIS and model validation" appears twice). It should be redesigned for better clarity.

o Table 1 has formatting issues, particularly in the row for "%Na," where the formula and class descriptions are misaligned.

4. Redundancy in Results: Sections 3.2 and the corresponding Figures 5 & 6 are highly redundant. Presenting both the spatial distribution of raw parameter values and their classified ratings for the same seven indices is excessive. It would be more efficient to combine these or focus only on the classified ratings (Figure 6) to streamline the results.

5. Data Availability Statement: The current statement ("All relevant data... are included within the manuscript") is insufficient for a journal with a strong data policy. The data are not fully included in the manuscript (e.g., the full dataset for the 30 samples is not in a table). The statement should be revised to specify that the data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request, as correctly noted on page 24.

6. Author Contributions: The Author Contributions section on page 23 appears to be a placeholder with repetitive and non-specific text (e.g., "software, F.Z.; I.M.; A.D.; F.M. and M.D.;"). This should be refined using the CRediT taxonomy to accurately reflect each author's specific role. The "funding acquisition, Y.Y." entry seems to be an error, as "Y.Y." is not listed as an author.

7. Typographical Errors: There are numerous minor typos and grammatical errors that require careful proofreading. Examples include:

o "the the Collo plain" in Figure 1 caption (page 6).

o "KI" is used in the text on page 19, but the parameter is consistently "KR" (Kelly's Ratio) everywhere else.

o "inficction law aquifer" (page 13) should likely be "fissured law aquifer" or similar.

o Incomplete sentence on page 22: "facie" should be "facies".

8. Reference Consistency: Some references are incomplete. For example, reference 46 is listed as "Lentswe and Molwalefhe [46]" in the text, but the full reference list contains both "Abrams et al., 2018" and "Lentswe and Molwalefhe, 2020" as reference 46. This duplication and inconsistency need to be resolved.

These comments are intended to help the authors strengthen their manuscript, which presents important and concerning findings on a critical water security issue. The study provides a valuable dataset and a solid foundation that can be enhanced with the suggested revisions. Please respond to all of those comments in the revised manuscript by pointing out precisely and concisely on which page and in which line you have incorporated your response one by one.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript title: Application of an integrated GIS-AHP water quality index to evaluate the groundwater suitability for irrigation in a coastal aquifer in northeastern Algeria

Dear Authors, I have now read and assessed your manuscript with the abovementioned details. The topic of the manuscript is interesting. However, carefully and thoroughly address the concerns below to improve the overall quality:

1. While maintaining conciseness, the abstract should also capture the research/knowledge gap(s), novelty of study, and methodology in clear terms.

2. Keywords section: Do not repeat terms already given in the title.

3. The literature review in the introduction section is weak. It should be expository. Some claims here are not justified.

4. The literature review is shallow and narrowed to generic issues and the Algerian region. The title and keywords suggest that multiple aspects of water quality research were incorporated in the study. These should be appropriately captured and contextualized in the introduction.

5. The literature review should appropriately contextualize the work for global readership. Water quality issues are global issues. You should capture water quality cases and reviews (covering groundwater contamination as a global issue, contaminant types, source apportionment, water quality indexing, health risk assessment) from this region and other countries. For global literature review on irrigation water quality assessment: 10.1080/00032719.2025.2484451; 10.1007/s12665-025-12174-8; 10.1016/j.gsd.2023.101059; 10.1016/j.jics.2022.100479; 10.3390/su15097593; 10.1007/s42250-024-00917-2. For literature review on Algerian irrigation water quality indexing, refer to: 10.1016/j.rineng.2025.104160; 10.1007/s10653-024-01931-6; 10.1007/s12665-024-11844-3. For literature review on hydrogeochemical characterization, refer: 10.1007/s13201-025-02387-4; 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.139083; 10.1080/15275922.2021.2006363; 10.1080/03067319.2023.2206022. Finally, for literature review on AHP and GIS methods, refer to 10.3390/rs15102567; 10.1007/s40808-022-01502-7; and other studies across regions.

6. The reason(s) for the selection of the methods for this research appears unclear. The literature review should justify the relevance and suitability of the methodology combinations for this kind of study, in the light of the fact that there are several other methodological options. In the literature review, briefly highlight on previous applications of the applied methods in other regions.

7. Globally and regionally, how does the present study relate to and advance previous works? This requires you to briefly review existing literature in the region. Robustly contextualize the gaps in the storyline.

8. There are characteristics of the study area that should be captured in Section 2.1, as they substantially influence contamination transport and accumulation. Provide sufficient details of: climate, surface hydrology, geology, hydrogeology, geomorphology, environmental sanitation, vegetation cover, and predominant human activities.

9. Table 1: provide supportive references for the methods and classification. The suggested works on irrigation water quality assessment could provide you with insights.

10. All abbreviations should be written in full at first mention before reusing them consistently elsewhere.

11. Since the relevant parameters were analyzed, the methods should include hydrogeochemical characterization of the groundwater and how it was done alongside its specific considerations.

12. Additionally, stoichiometric equations should be added in the discussion part to unravel some chemical reactions in the water environment that govern its hydrogeochemical evolution.

13. The methodology of Section 3.3 was not included in the methods section. Please do the needful.

14. Comparisons of the findings with relevant literatures should be done in a robust and comprehensive manner in the discussion section. All aspects of the results should be discussed and compared with literature. In other words, the discussion part should incorporate comparisons with previous studies on water quality indexing, source apportionment, and geochemical processes/evolution, etc. Your comparison should include those from other countries, including the recommended works. Justify how your work is different and enhance the novelty and global relevance your findings more.

15. Relate the results and implications to the characteristics of the study area. This would make it more practical and also help your readers to better understand the results.

16. Discuss the implications of the study on water security, public health, sustainable groundwater development, and achieving related sustainable development goals.

17. Revise the conclusions section after the above issues have been thoroughly addressed in the manuscript.

18. Authors should take the revision of their manuscript seriously and provide point-by-point responses that explain how and where in the manuscript the corrections have been effected.

Best wishes.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Mohamed Gad

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

-->Figure Resubmissions:

-->-->While revising your submission, we strongly recommend that you use PLOS’s NAAS tool (https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis) to test your figure files. NAAS can convert your figure files to the TIFF file type and meet basic requirements (such as print size, resolution), or provide you with a report on issues that do not meet our requirements and that NAAS cannot fix.-->-->

After uploading your figures to PLOS’s NAAS tool - https://ngplosjournals.pagemajik.ai/artanalysis, NAAS will process the files provided and display the results in the "Uploaded Files" section of the page as the processing is complete. If the uploaded figures meet our requirements (or NAAS is able to fix the files to meet our requirements), the figure will be marked as "fixed" above. If NAAS is unable to fix the files, a red "failed" label will appear above. When NAAS has confirmed that the figure files meet our requirements, please download the file via the download option, and include these NAAS processed figure files when submitting your revised manuscript.-->

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments for the authors.docx

Application of an integrated GIS-AHP water quality index to evaluate the groundwater suitability for irrigation in a coastal aquifer in northeastern Algeria

PWAT-D-25-00218R1

Dear Professor AbdelRahman,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Application of an integrated GIS-AHP water quality index to evaluate the groundwater suitability for irrigation in a coastal aquifer in northeastern Algeria' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Water.

I have carefully considered the revised manuscript in light of the reviewers’ comments and your detailed responses. The revisions have addressed the reviewers’ concerns satisfactorily, particularly with respect to the clarification of the methodological framework (including the AHP weighting procedure, IWQI formulation, and spatial analysis approach). The manuscript has been significantly improved in terms of clarity, structure, and scientific rigor.

Some minor editorial issues remain that can be addressed during the final stages of production. These include:

• Minor tightening of the Introduction to improve conciseness
• Refinement of the Data Availability statement to ensure full compliance with journal policy
• Minor language editing and correction of typographical inconsistencies
• Final checks for figure and table clarity and formatting consistency

These points are minor and do not affect the overall quality or validity of the study. Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact water@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Water.

Best regards,

MJM Cheema, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Water

***********************************************************

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Water’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Water does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: In my opinion this paper is an interesting study and authors have evaluated groundwater suitability for irrigation using integrate hydrochemical analysis, AHP-weighted Irrigation Water Quality Index (IWQI), and GIS mapping in the Collo Plain, a coastal aquifer in northeastern Algeria, thereby providing a comprehensive and transferable framework for sustainable water resource management.

The article is written correctly, includes a discussion of the research findings, and a good review of the literature. The results are presented in a clearly structured manner. The paper has a logical structure and clearly describes the methodology. The manuscript has been significantly improved and can now be accepted in current form.

Reviewer #2: Reviewer # comments:

Manuscript ID: PWAT-D-25-00218R1

Manuscript title: Application of an integrated GIS-AHP water quality index to evaluate the groundwater suitability for irrigation in a coastal aquifer in northeastern Algeria

Accept.

Best wishes

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes: Mohamed Gad

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments for the authors.docx