Arctic Heritage at Risk: Insights into How Remote Sensing, Robotics and Simulation Can Improve Risk Analysis and Enhance Safety

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This will be a brief review as I don't have much to say. The material is important and worth bringing to readers' attention, though in my opinion is not particularly novel - however this is to be expected from a short article that is intended to synthesize rather than present new results. It's very clear and well-written. I have only a few extremely minor suggestions:

1) In the abstract and first paragraph, the term "cultural safety" is used. I found the first use - in the abstract - confusing; the second use makes more or less clear what is meant, but I still found it an odd term, and wonder if "cultural wellbeing" or the like might be better.

2) Figure 2, which graphically synthesizes the utility of different platforms, is useful overall, but I think the two oblique lines should be explained more clearly in the text and/or caption.

3) Line 276: aren't they "Remotely Operated Vehicles"? And, if not, shouldn't it be "ROPs" instead of "ROVs"?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

A paper like this is definitely needed. But it needs significant updates and modifications. As it looks in its present form, is not clear if it is a classic review paper, a brief report (as you submit it), or just a short outlook of what has been done. You should clearly state your objectives towards the end of the Introduction Section.

Another major drawback is the poor or in-existent manuscript format according to the Instructions for Authors.

The paper seems to not have a start and clear end, please, structure your paper according to the classic papers (Introduction, Study area, Methodology, Results and/or Discussions, and Conclusions). As it is, it shows little or no structure whatsoever. Please, correct this aspect.

More comments can be found in the attached .pdf document.

Good luck with the review.

Kind regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The submission is a good, high-level overview of ways in which remote sensing at different scales can address the specific and unique challenges of polar/Arctic research. As a survey of existing technologies and their appropriateness at different scales rather than a formal research report, I'd note that the coverage seems appropriate and thorough, with appropriate citations and coverage.

Other than minor copyediting issues, my main concern is formal--the article is solid and consistent in tome, then comes to a fairly abrupt end. It needs a stronger conclusion, either more thoroughly recapitulating the themes and observations developed in the preceding pages, advantages and disadvantages of differently-scaled approaches, the ways in which specific technological constraints may limit the use of one or another technique in high-latitude contexts, new directions in either the kinds of research made possible/practical using these technologies, or needs for new technological platforms dictated by existing research. As a reader I flipped back and forth several times trying to see if I'd missed this section, or my review copy was somehow incomplete. 

To be clear this is not a criticism of content but of style, and the submission would be greatly strengthened by addition of a broader and less curtailed concluding section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

All my comments and other reviewers were tackled accordingly. The manuscript looks and sounds much better now. I think it can be accepted as it is.

Kind regards.