Reply to comment on ‘Kisi O. 2007. Evapotranspiration modelling from climatic data using a neural computing technique. Hydrological Processes 21:1925–1934’

The author would like to express his thanks for the interest shown by the discussers and for their comments on the paper (Kisi, 2007). I have tried to clarify all the points raised by them in this reply. In the first page of the comment, the authors state that HSJ paper uses . . . and employs the same climatic data . . . The climatic data cannot be the same because the stations used in the HSJ paper are different from that of the manuscript of Nordic Hydrology (NH). Therefore, the statement is not correct. The author improved the Hydrological Sciences Journal (HSJ) paper (Kisi, 2006a) and submitted to the Hydrological Processes (HP) journal (HP2) on 5 June 2006. The HSJ paper was accepted by the journal on 12 July 2006. The author has not cited the HSJ paper in HP2 (Kisi, 2008) because the HSJ paper was under review at that time. HP paper (Kisi, 2007) was cited in the HP2 paper since it was accepted by the journal on 2 March 2006. On the other hand, the tables and figures given in HP2 and HSJ papers are different from each other. Because, the author investigated the accuracy of generalized regression neural networks (GRNN) in the estimation of reference evapotranspiration (ET0) in the HSJ paper, while the ability of three different artificial neural networks (ANN) were examined in the HP2 paper.