Clim. Past, 12, 2255-2270, 2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
|Interactive discussion||Status: closed|
|AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment|
|- Printer-friendly version - Supplement|
|RC1: 'Referee report', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Feb 2016|
|AC1: 'Response to Reviewer's comments', Kira Rehfeld, 04 Apr 2016|
|RC2: 'reviewer comments', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 Feb 2016|
|AC2: 'Response to reviewer comments', Kira Rehfeld, 15 Apr 2016|
|Peer review completion|
|AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision|
|ED: Reconsider after major revisions (16 Apr 2016) by Dr. Eduardo Zorita|
|Dear Dr. Rehfeld,|
thank you very much for submitting your manuscript to Climate of the Past Discussions and for addressing the reviewers reports in your interactive comments.
As you already were aware both reviewers raised essentially the same main concern that current vegetation models embedded in earth system models use a much lower number of plant functional types than normally considered in real pollen-based climate reconstructions.
In your response, you argue that although the real number of plant functional types is indeed larger in reality than in the models, the effective real number is actually not that high and thus it is closer to the number used in models, because much of the information contained in the individual plant functional types is redundant.
This is an important piece of information that, in my opinion, actually transcends the initial goal of your study, as it would imply that the analogue search could actually be conducted in a space of lower dimensionality. It even may imply that the field work - collecting and analysing pollen samples - could be conducted more effectively by identifying key functional types that may be representative of a broader class, actually mimicking what vegetation models represent.
My impression is that this line of reasoning can lead to a broader debate in the climate reconstructions community between modellers and experimentalist, and therefore I would encourage you to pay special attention to this point in the revised version of the manuscript, presenting solid reasoning backed up by relevant literature.
Due to the potential controversial character of this point, it might become necessary to draw a third reviewer to evaluate this revised version.
Other than that, the reviewers express their opinion that the manuscript is well-written and that the topic is novel and relevant. Therefore, I am looking forward to that revised version of your manuscript that addresses the main criticism of the reviewers. My recommendation 'major revisions' reflects here the need for the revised version to be evaluated again regarding this point.
|AR by Dr. Kira Rehfeld on behalf of the Authors (17 May 2016) Author's response Manuscript|
|ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (25 May 2016) by Dr. Eduardo Zorita|
|RR by John Williams (09 Nov 2016)|
|ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by Editor) (10 Nov 2016) by Dr. Eduardo Zorita|
|Dear Dr. Rehfeld,|
Thank you for submitting the reversed version of your manuscript to Climate of the past. After quite some time, this version has been evaluated by one reviewer - who was not involved in the evaluation of the initial submission but who had access to the open discussion phase of the evaluation process.
According to the evaluation report and my own reading of the manuscript, I am returning the manuscript to you for some revisions, which I think can be swiftly incorporated.
I want to apologize again for the unduly long time that the evaluation of this manuscript has consumed. There were some unusual circumstances that interrupted the review process and that were not completely under our control. Some reviewers that agreed to evaluate the manuscript did not finally provide an evaluation; in one case, one reviewer suffered unexpected events that prevented to complete the evaluation. Thank you very much for your patience.
As you can see in the attached evaluation report, the reviewer expresses a positive opinion about the manuscript and acknowledges that it can raise some controversial points in the community. This was already evident in the first round of reports. Although the reviewer does not agree with all the conclusions reached in your study, he recognizes that these will have to be vetted by the community as a whole after publication of the study. I broadly concur with his opinion. Any study strongly based on modelling, always depends to some extent on the realism of the models used, which is an evolving property of models.
The reviewer has generally identified a list of points the require your attention, mostly related to re-wording of sentences/paragraphs to improve the readability. My interpretation is that all of them can be in principle incorporated into a new version.
|AR by Dr. Kira Rehfeld on behalf of the Authors (26 Nov 2016) Author's response Manuscript|
|ED: Publish as is (05 Dec 2016) by Dr. Eduardo Zorita|
|Dear Dr. Rehfeld,|
thank you for revising the manuscript following the detailed review by J. Williams. In my evaluation, you have satisfactorily addressed his comments and concerns, and those of the previous reviewers', and I am now happy to recommend the publication of the manuscript in Climate of the Past.