Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

most of the remarks from the previous report have been considered and corrected. Thank you. In the attached document, there are several comments remaining, referring mainly on the new text you provided. 

Please consider thorough text checking since there are many flaws. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, check the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please, see atached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please refer to the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors.

This report contains general and specific comments.

Specific comments are given throughout the manuscript. The general comments are below:

In this form, the paper presents correlation results which are discussed in a lecturing way. The real contribution is missing; The English has to be significantly improved, The literature review does not meet the required level of background on the topic, both in lack of references, as well as outdated sources, The latitudes which are elaborated in the research, are geographical or geomagnetic? This is important information, The methodology must be improved.

Please revise accordingly, avoid unnecessary explanations and focus on technical solutions and mathematical presentations. These remarks are mentioned through the text.

Good luck

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please, see attached file. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for the authors responses to my previous comments. However, some of the main concern is still not explained clearly.

1) The authors would like to point out some geographical related behaviors on the correlation between VTEC and ionosphere delay from statistic analysis, and I suggested that more stations different latitude located should be included. In addition, I believer there are a large number of reliable stations with IGS.

2) The authors argued that "if the MAW1 is excluded", then R between VTEC and rDCB gradually increases from low- to high-latitude on average. However, this conclusion is far from convincing since there are only two stations in ease latitude-section.

3) If you believe that the TEC changes are more clearly observed n the Northern Hemisphere (TIXI) than in the Southern Hemisphere (MAW1), could you give us an explanation, or what can the readers get from this phenomenon?

4) The ionosphere is a physical quantity that dependent to the geomagnetic status, solar activity, etc., while the DCB is receiver type, environment temperature... related. The statements e.g., "t is noted that ionospheric TEC is correlated strongly with the stability of rDCB in low-latitude regions" is only valid for the ionospheric estimates generated with GNSS measurement, not the ionosphere itself. The authors should emphasize this to avoid misunderstanding

Reviewer 2 Report

Please refer to the accompanying document

Comments for author File: Comments.docx