Standardized Reporting Needed to Improve Accuracy of Flaring Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
you have presented this communication in very nice manner.
Since you are alone author, please don't use "we" in text.
Everything else is fine. You have some technical errors - such as line 169 - this was left from template. Please correct it throught the text.
After minor revisions, this communication paper can be accepted.
Detailed Comments：
1. This paper deals with the issue of reporting gas flaring data. Since there is no standard in reporting, there are many losses in quality data and therefore the author suggested how reporting should be dealt with.
2. Strengths of this paper: excellent overview of existing reporting and losses in data. Great presentation of satellite recordings and known and unknown biases in gas report flaring. Weaknesses: Since this is only a communication paper, I feel there are no weaknesses, if the author should consider writing a full article, I would suggest more theoretical background on gas flaring and more examples of how and why. Plus I would recommend proposing a standardized sheet of gas flaring report and a couple of examples how to do it.
3. As I stated above, there is no need for point by point major recommendations since this is a communication paper - which by definition (or one of definitions) stands as: Short Communications are short articles which state or present original and significant material. In general, the length of the short communication article is restricted to 2500 words (some journals may allow up to 3500 words). It may include one or two figures and tables. It includes abstract, main body, acknowledgment (if any), and references (up to 8 references). The main body is usually not divided into sections.
4. Point-by-point minor revisions are written in the first review report: - avoid usage of "we" since there is only one author. Technical errors such as in line 169 should be checked and corrected.
Author Response
I thank reviewer 1 for her/his generous comments.
In response:
1. This paper deals with the issue of reporting gas flaring data. Since there is no standard in reporting, there are many losses in quality data and therefore the author suggested how reporting should be dealt with.
2. Strengths of this paper: excellent overview of existing reporting and losses in data. Great presentation of satellite recordings and known and unknown biases in gas report flaring. Weaknesses: Since this is only a communication paper, I feel there are no weaknesses, if the author should consider writing a full article, I would suggest more theoretical background on gas flaring and more examples of how and why. Plus I would recommend proposing a standardized sheet of gas flaring report and a couple of examples how to do it.
I am grateful for these insights. I am indeed in communication with colleagues to potentially forward a full, more detailed manuscript in the future. A recommended data sheet would be a helpful addition to that.
3. As I stated above, there is no need for point by point major recommendations since this is a communication paper - which by definition (or one of definitions) stands as: Short Communications are short articles which state or present original and significant material. In general, the length of the short communication article is restricted to 2500 words (some journals may allow up to 3500 words). It may include one or two figures and tables. It includes abstract, main body, acknowledgment (if any), and references (up to 8 references). The main body is usually not divided into sections.
I think it was important to have sections in this case. Though they do not follow the general manuscript outline based on the Commentary/Communication nature of this manuscript, they provide a necessary structure following my train of thought.
4. Point-by-point minor revisions are written in the first review report: - avoid usage of "we" since there is only one author. Technical errors such as in line 169 should be checked and corrected.
Done.
Reviewer 2 Report
he submitted manuscript is named "Communication". Therefore, I will have a slightly different attitude to this manuscript.
This manuscript about standardizing the volumes of gas flared that is measured and reported can greatly improve accuracy. It is also proposed here to expand
satellite measurements of burning individual flares under controlled conditions as a major obstacle to the provision of daily monitoring, along with the possible use of remote measurement of the flame temperature to assess the completeness of combustion.
The text of the manuscript is of great interest to specialists.
However, there are comments
1. It seems to me that it is necessary to add a Background or Literature Review section in order to expand the presentation of the subject area.
2. The number of sources can be expanded. Perhaps the authors need to add an overview of the patents.
The overall result is to accept with minor changes.
Author Response
I thank reviewer 2 for her/his comments.
In response:
1. It seems to me that it is necessary to add a Background or Literature Review section in order to expand the presentation of the subject area.
Note that the manuscript already contains a named Introduction section. However, I agree that even for a Commentary/Communication paper this may be a bit short. I have thus added a paragraph with a technical flare description, and included several more references. There are monographs dealing with different aspects of gas flaring. Since my focus is on the current satellite-based volume estimate, my goal in this Commentary/Communication was to focus the Introduction onto that.
2. The number of sources can be expanded. Perhaps the authors need to add an overview of the patents.
The number of sources was substantially expanded to add more information, including from a company directly involved in the discussions. However, I do not know what the reviewer meant by "overview of patents". A more specific comment was needed.
