Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper examines the nature of clandestine burials, and examines a case study of such a burial, putting into practice a technique that previously had only been trialed in theory in a previous paper. It is novel, interesting and deserved to be published. It sets out clearly the problem and then offers a practical solution. It is well- and appropriately-referenced.

For much of the methodology the reader is referred to a previous paper. The method of combining of individual RAG factors to produce an overall RAG factor is crucial to the overall outcome (e.g.  elimination of impossible scenarios, multiplication of weighted likelihood rankings, etc). It should not be left to the reading to consult another paper for the detail, but it should be outlined here. Figure 2 is not particularly useful at present but could be if extended to include how individual factors are combined. It might make the alternative search scenarios more clear later on. 

Section 3.2.1 is fragmented and jumps around, with one sentence paragraphs. It should concentrate on first geographical, then geological and finally botanical features as the section title suggests - but probably in separate sections. Botanical names for the flora present should also be given. The botanical site description is confusing and needs a map.

Section 3.2.4.7 could be made more clear. Particularly, detail needs to be provided on how the individual layers are combined, either here or in the methods section.

The discussion I think needs to be strengthened. The first part of the Discussions and Conclusions section is not a discussion but a largely unnecessary repeat of the results from earlier. It could be summarised more succinctly and implications discussed.

The discussion could really revolve around the final point 6. Is a DTM-based search meaningful when a DSM-based search might be more relevant? (If vegetation hides the site then does it matter what the terrain is?). 

Would other methodologies of cross-correlating layers (e.g. likelihood weighting multiplication) potentially narrow the search further or further prioritise most likely locations within the red areas?

The article is generally well-written, however, there are many cases (I have a list of over 75 examples) where the translation to English could be improved, but the reviewer guidance states not to list these here.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we accepted all you useful suggestions.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper. My comments can be found in the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we accepted all you useful suggestions.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx