Instrument Development: Chinese Radiometric Benchmark of Reflected Solar Band Based on Space Cryogenic Absolute Radiometer

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

While technical content of the article is satisfactory and topic relevant, the language and style must be improved.

Please ensure extensive editing of English language and improve the content flow. Sentences often appear as isolated and not part of the smooth flow. This makes difficult for readers to understand the main message of certain paragraphs.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Instrument Development: Chinese Radiometric Benchmark of Reflected Solar Band based on Space Cryogenic Absolute Radiometer

The authors introduce the development progress of the radiometric benchmark of the reflected solar band based on the Space Cryogenic Absolute Radiometer (SCAR) and showed the improvement on radiometric analysis.

This paper has several strong points that I can mention:

• The subject of this research is interesting, and it will make a lot of readers interested and absorbed to this manuscript;
• Radiometric might modify many previously mentioned techniques.
• The manuscript is made in good structure and authors managed to mention their points clearly.

However, there are several points that must be corrected before the manuscript goes for publication:

• The major suggestion regarding this manuscript is related to describing the conclusive results from these analyses. As there are many great analyses done and it would be better to highlight the conclusion more explicitly.
• If possible, please elaborate more about down-welling radiation as well and its connection to your analyses. Some strongly recommended references [1-7].

Some editorial comments:

• Please modify your figures and they need to be improved.
• Tables are also need to made better.

In overall, the manuscript discusses an intriguing research but need some modifications. Therefore, major revision.

Thank you

References

1. Diffuse attenuation coefficient of downwelling irradiance: An evaluation of remote sensing methods
2. Continuum removal for ground-based LWIR hyperspectral infrared imagery applying non-negative matrix factorization
3. A model for the diffuse attenuation coefficient of downwelling irradiance
4. Emissivity retrieval from indoor hyperspectral imaging of mineral grains
5. Estimation of the spectral diffuse attenuation coefficient of downwelling irradiance in inland and coastal waters from hyperspectral remote sensing data: Validation with experimental data
6. Estimation of the depth of sunlight penetration in the sea for remote sensing
7. A review of protocols for fiducial reference measurements of downwelling irradiance for the validation of satellite remote sensing data over water

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for additional effort to make paper better. Composition and flow have been improved sufficiently to warrant paper to be published.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have no more question. My recommendation is: Acceptance.

Thank you

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

English language and style require substantial improvements. Do not expect this work to be done by the reviewers.

The topic of the paper is relevant, I therefore strongly encourage you to make this editing effort and to resubmit a new version.

Reviewer 2 Report

This work is exceedingly hard to follow. I understand that the authors are not native English speakers and therefore I recommend professional copy editing. It has been my experience that this can substantially improve the paper. Additionally, the authors need to give the paper a better level of detail and care. Uncertainties are poorly stated as are the references. It is impossible to evaluate the work scientifically in its current form. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper shows clear strong effort behind the presented research, but writing style is a bit hard to follow smoothly. Sentences are too long and sometimes require multiple readings to understand. I suggest editing writing style to express main ideas clearer and more precise.