Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Global Landslide Reporting Using a Decade of the Global Landslide Catalog
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper attempts to discover the spatial and temporal distribution of landslides worldwide based on NASA’s Global Landslide Catalog (GLC). This topic is interesting, and the authors put considerable effort into this research. I think this paper might be of interest to potential readers. However, there still exist some critical issues that should be addressed before I can recommend this article. General and specific comments are given below.
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1). Section “3. Results and Discussion”. It looks irregular and looks like a bowl of noodles with no clue. One improvement that could be made is to add subheadings to group individual conclusions.
2). For the conclusion, “the relationship between country GDP and income status with landslide occurrence was determined to have a positive correlation between economic status and landslide reporting.” This positive correlation is due to statistical bias rather than geological environmental reasons. Obviously, countries with higher GDP are more inclined to environmental protection, and the data related to landslide reports are more perfect. The fact that low-income countries have low efforts to take care of landslides does not mean lacking landslides within their territories. Please supplement discussions in the discussion section.
3). I noticed that from "3. Results and Discussion", the typesetting fails to follow the general MDPI specification. Please correct it.
4). I noticed that from "3. Results and Discussion", the typesetting fails to follow the general MDPI specification. Please correct it.
5). Please divide the Conclusion into several independent items. The clearer, the better.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript assesses the NASA’s GLC database, which helps people better use it. However, the quality of this manuscript is low, which is reflected in the following aspects: (1) The description of results is superficial and lacks in-depth analysis. Taking Africa as an example, the average number of events in July is 2.2, but the number of fatalities is the lowest, while the number of events in August is 3.3, but the number of fatalities is the largest. This phenomenon is also common in other regions, such as Asia, Europe, North America. So, what are the specific reasons for this? The authors should analyze in depth, rather than simply describe the figure. (2) The quality of data used in this manuscript needs to be discussed, such as the global susceptibility map. If the accuracy of the data is not considered, imperfect conclusions may occur. (3) The figure quality is low. In addition, there are a few minor errors that need to be carefully corrected.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors responded to all four general and specific comments. The present reviewer noted a steady improvement in the quality of the paper. However, there are still some errors that need to be corrected before I recommend this article. Given the current situation, this manuscript should be minor revised in present form.
1). The Conclusion Section is missing. Please double-check it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In general, the authors have attended most of my suggestions. The replies and revision are both a good effort from the authors.
- Although the manuscript has been double-checked for spelling and grammatical errors, a few minor spelling errors that need to be carefully corrected, such as 3.1 section ”… reporting 769 events between 207 – 2018”, 207 ?
- The article lacks the conclusion section, and it is suggested to add.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
