Scientific Cooperation: Supporting Circumpolar Permafrost Monitoring and Data Sharing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

it would be better to have more information concerning difficulties in international cooperation as well as national problems of sharing data not only in Russia, but in other countries - USA, Canada, China, and some analysis. Union. It looks like Russia only has problems with it. Funding is another question which could be at least raised and which is often a key for cooperative work.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your feedback on our manuscript. We are sincerely grateful for your insight on how we could strengthen our work.

We took the opportunity to provide additional content that highlighted issues involving nations with the predominant permafrost issues as you mention, Russia, Canada and the United States. Based on the other reviewers similar/related comments, we were able to provide revisions that addressed both reviewers very helpful comments.

Additionally, we needed to ensure that the article is clear that decent collaboration and sub/regional data sharing occurs somewhat and the networks that exist are effective. What is critical for us is that awareness and improvement of achieving a cohesive circumpolar network should be pursued. Presenting a balance was a sensitive requirement for us. The revised manuscript hopefully provides edits that address your comments and article purpose effectively.

Thank you again for your time and expertise in helping produce an improved product.

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting discussion and perspective, well written and clear, easy to read, data sharing has been recently recognised and improved considerably in the last decade, mainly within collaborative network and governmental institution but in many case the situation remains delicate between data producer, user and funding agency. Excellent reflection. Great support of reference and up to date.

See in more details some comments and suggestions

Line 10: Please identify the corresponding author(s)

Line 37: The authors … really relevant, who pay for this, sometime the sum of individual effort, anything to propose for a better data recognition, global assessment contribution, ORCID, H-Index, …, the line between research monitoring and well-established and funded monitoring network such as WMO is large, data contributor should be advise when data user accessed to  data in order to avoid duplication ...

Line 59 -60, First, second and third should be in bold, importance od data QA/QC should also been identified

Line 80: I agree, really improve with the development of collaborative network

Line 85: Develop, why we need a global data access such as well-established network (Seismic, WMO,, ), highlight the eventual cost benefit gain,  

Line 113: 1) current state … , 2) rationales …, 3) Implications … should also include a section 4) on data recognition

Line 122: Better definition of permafrost with active layer is requested even if most readers are already aware

Line 140: add the influence on contaminants released and cycling other than C

Line 169 (Fig 1) and 206 (Fig 2), low fig resolution in the PDF version, some legend hard to read, to be check and /or improve

Line 203-205: please develop, actual state and better picture of change in evolving climate, faster respond time, …

Line 222: …. Base from existing collaborative network and facilities, highlight the importance of collaborative network, staff and facilities to support research in a specific area of interest., much more difficult to reduce spatial gap outside them   

 Line 240: Canadian research is more dispersed and concentrated in Eastern and/or  Western Arctic, not totally agree with linked to US research, please remove

Line 269: Researchers …. not entirely resolved, please develop 

Line 313: Even more successful story, the WMO, and most of them related directly to public safety

Line 457: Discussion on the role of traditional indigenous knowledge and research monitoring implication of collectivity in the near future should be discussed, and being part of new collaborative network and funding proposal

Line 465: describe acronym, DOD, and GAO, here and elsewhere
Line 509: SWIPA …
Line 522: Add role of UNEP and WMO

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your detailed and outstanding feedback. We addressed every single point which you can see in the revised manuscript which was edited in review mode. The lines shifted of course because of added content, but we did take every single item from your comments and used them to help strengthen and clarify our work.

We are sincerely grateful for such expert and effective feedback from you. There was not a single point that we did not agree with and feel very confident that your review has greatly improved our manuscript.

Please let us know if we have not met expectations, but I think you will be satisfied with our revisions. All changes are easily identified in the revised document - point by point.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. You have helped make this a rewarding experience.