Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The use of the concept "climate services" was misleading for me throughout the paper. Please reconsider this, or provide a clear meaning for the reader.

The involvement of the concept "Anthropocene" is unclear. Why use it when it does not add an additional value to the paper?

My feeling is that the title does not really covers what the paper is about. The abstract also drives the reader into a direction, what to expect from the paper, but the reader gets a different thing in the end. Perhaps it might help if you try to be more clear about the goals of the paper, and reconsider the structure of it.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and feedback. We have explicitly defined climate services so that it is clearer that climate adaptation research fits under that umbrella. We have also replaced the word Anthropocene in the first sentence, as it was not critical to the content of the paper. We substituted “evaluation” for “examination” in the title for clarity. We have updated the abstract to clearly focus on the evaluation of research that is conducted for the purpose of serving stakeholders in climate adaptation.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

 

i thoroughly enjoyed reading your paper with clear message based on solid literature review, societal need and an interesting case study. I have no comments to improve the paper and I recommend publishing it in the present form.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic of the paper is interesting and needs of demand. Authors are encouraged to include recent references and some more information in the methodology and introduction. Some sentences are very long that need to be shortened and rephrased. For example, the first sentence of the Abstract is in 3 lines.  The paper can be accepted after these minor changes. 

Author Response

Thank you for your review and feedback. The introduction already had numerous citations of recent literature, but we have replaced the survey design citations in the methods section with updated references. We worked to either separate a long sentence into two sentences, if appropriate; provide punctuation/lists that helped clarify phrases, especially in the abstract; or reduce the length of words in sentences (e.g., “use” for “utilize”).

Reviewer 4 Report

This is a well reasoned paper and is clearly written. The reviewer appreciates the fact that the authors addressed the limitations of doing a blanket survey, the limited sample size (response rate), and the need to better tailor evaluation processes and to build them into project design. These are very relevant recommendations.  

Author Response

Thank you for your review and feedback.