Next Article in Journal
Determination of Global Geodetic Parameters Using Satellite Laser Ranging Measurements to Sentinel-3 Satellites
Next Article in Special Issue
A Review of Progress and Applications of Pulsed Doppler Wind LiDARs
Previous Article in Journal
Hyperspectral Image Denoising Using Global Weighted Tensor Norm Minimum and Nonlocal Low-Rank Approximation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sentinel-1 Data for Winter Wheat Phenology Monitoring and Mapping
remotesensing-logo
Article Menu
Open AccessArticle
Peer-Review Record

Retrieval of Snow Properties from the Sentinel-3 Ocean and Land Colour Instrument

Remote Sens. 2019, 11(19), 2280; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11192280
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Remote Sens. 2019, 11(19), 2280; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11192280
Received: 19 July 2019 / Revised: 5 September 2019 / Accepted: 16 September 2019 / Published: 29 September 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing: 10th Anniversary)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you a lot for your manuscript “Retrieval of snow properties from Sentinel-3 Ocean and Land Colour Instrument”. The knowledge about the distribution of grain size and albedo is very important and your manuscript contributes to fill this gap with a beautiful, global data set. Nevertheless, I am very skeptical if your manuscript is worth for publication for following reasons:


1.       The manuscript has no clear line and it is very confusing to read. Who is your audience and which story do you have for the reader?

2.       The manuscript has no structure. In chapter 2 “Materials and Methods”, the data of S3 are not explained, in chapter 3 “Results”, no results are discussed, but new formulas are derived – why are you not following the traditional content and hence the structure of papers? The theory of the relation between snow grain size and albedo is not clear. Please, revise this chapter.

3.       The manuscript is definitely too long and you are losing the attention of the reader. Keep it short and simple!

4.       With all the explanations how to process the data and which parameters should be used, it sound more like a delivery or manual. My suggestion would be to put all your scripts, processing explanations, and used parameters onto you internet page https://portal.polartep.io and to reduce your manuscript to most important points like the theory, results, and accuracy assessment.

5.       31 Authors are definitely too much! I am very sorry.

6.       Revise your English and take care of the tenses.

7.       All figures should have a coordinate system and the same projection (Fig. 4.2 d is smaller than Fig 4.2. c). Take care that the values have the same colors and not to use different scales and colors for the same content (Fig 4.1. a and Fig 4.2 a).

8.       Have you compared your results with the snow albedo derived of MODIS? It would be great to have a comparison in 2D and not only for few points.

9.       In Kokhanovsky et al. (2018), you already derived the snow reflectivity of snow. What is the difference between snow reflectivity and albedo and hence of the formulas?

10.   Table 3.5 lists the difference between OLCI- and in-situ grain sizes. Are these the results of all AWS in Greenland? A comparison during the whole winter would be interesting – changes the accuracy assessment in dependence of the seasons? How changes grain size and albedo during derived of S3 over one year?

11.   Corresponds the grain size to the glacier zones? I am missing the discussion about the spatial distribution of the grain sizes and the albedo in a glaciological frame.


Good luck!



Author Response

Please, see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks a lot for such an interesting manuscript. In the attachment, please find my comments.

 

Sincerely,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please, see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

See attached pdf

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please, see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

no new comments.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.


Back to TopTop