The CAESAR Project for the ASI Space Weather Infrastructure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The technical note on "The CAESAR project for the ASI SPace weather InfraStructure"  is technically presented. However, I suggested the authors to have a thorough read of the paper as there are some instances of typos. The title also could be revisited, as capitalization at some points is unnecessary. In the main text, I have listed a few typos which the authors may rectify. In general, I must agree with the acceptance of the manuscript subject to the correction of typos, as the technical note will reach many scientists.

 

Minor comments:

Line 32 there is the need => there is a need

Line 49 e.g. => e.g.,

Line 73 all the world => all over the world

Line 97 In this article => In this article,

Line 155 within in the => within the

Line 158 Thus => Thus,

Line 171 So far => So far,

Line 189 Correct “Nevertheless, also during northward IMF periods reconnection poleward of the cusps [46] or Kelvin-Helmholtz waves at the magnetosphere flanks [47] can occur.”

Line 373 and 376 Unexpected dots (.)

Line 384 It can be classified in 3 main categories => can be classified into 3 main categories

Line 438 One of the goal => One of the goals

Line 473 to allow users to perform => for allowing users to perform

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors introduce the CAESAR project. The science, prototype, dissemination of the project are described. This project intent to involve wide Italian team that study space weather events, and it will unify as many as possible Italian resources, so as to benefit space weather researchers. It is a great work and I can't wait to use these features.

However, as a paper, I think some aspects are not clear enough, or in other word, not attractive enough. My specific recommendations are as follows:

1)In section "CAESAR Science", the authors mainly talk about space weather overview, such a description is not attractive to researchers in space weather science. I suggest that the authors describe in more detail the scientific problems to be solved in the project, or what models and features are specifically included in the project, and what scientific and engineering problems can be studied and solved.

Such as in lines 158-160, the authors says "WP1100 will attempt a unified vision of the Sun physical system ...". It's a great work of coz, however, as a reader, I wondering what is the roadmap to achieve this goal?

2)Inside NODE1000, the mechanism of collaboration between different WPs or institutes needs to be explained. 

3)The authors at least have analysis results for one target SWE event, I suggest to give some results in this paper.

Some minor points:

1) Line 189, "...reconnection poleward of...", change to "... reconnection at the poleward of...", please confirm

2)Line 338, a period is missing where the sentence ends.

3)Line 368, 373, and 376, a unnecessary dot in front of the sentence, please check.

4)Line 371, check "...will be based based on..."

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article provides a summary of the CAESAR project (coordinated by INAF), which is a part of the national scientific data center for Space Weather ASPIS (coordinated by ASI). The article does not contain original scientific research and provides a report (or rather a plan or a schedule of the upcoming scientific research in the framework of the CAESAR project). The scientific background of the project is presented in a fairly detailed way, although in somewhat ordinary words.

I have a few minor remarks about the work.

1. Phrases 145-147 regarding solar activity do not look very neat. Maybe the next version will be more correct: " The eruptive phenomena has its origins in the evolution of the magnetic field through the convective zone of the sun [where emergence and transport of magnetic fields occur] to the solar atmosphere, i.e., photosphere, chromosphere and corona [11-17]." 

2. I am not sure that models built only on the basis of extremely strong events will describe all flares and CME well. I'm talking about the list of target events proposed by the authors (299-301). Perhaps the authors should divide the events into several groups (extremely strong, ordinary, weak) and select target events for each class. Modern observatories provide the ability to study even very weak events in detail. Or I ask the authors to explain why only the largest events are selected as target ones.

3. I think that groups 1, 2 and 3 in section 4.1 do not quite agree with each other. In particular, I did not find a source of solar EUV images in the group 1. But some items in groups 2 and 3 clearly requires such data. This is not the only example. Is the list 1 complete or not? If not, how will other types of data be obtained. I did not find in Figure 5 any references to external data sources, such as SDO, GOES, etc.

4. I am not sure that the quality of figures 2 and 5 is high enough for printing and even for online reading

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper is devoted to the description of the CAESAR project aimed to join together different aspects of Space Weather science performed in Italy. The overall quality of the manuscript is very high. There is no scientific novelty in the results, but the paper is a technical note, so they are not required. At the same time, I believe that the CEASAR project will provide the opportunity to get exciting results in the future. One general comment concerning the manuscript is about the list of references. The total weight of Italian authors is much greater than 50%. It corresponds to the fact that the Italian SW community is one of the leading in the world. However, at the same time, authors should consider the opportunity also to increase the number of citations for other international teams who work in the same field. I also propose several minor corrections to be made (the list is given below). After these corrections the manuscript can be considered accepted for the publication.

s. 8: DEtailed -> detailed

s.59: 2019. In -> 2019, in (otherwise, the next sentence does not have a verb)

s.83: "presented in the present" -> correct tautology

s.128: "sceince" -> "science"

s.127-208 "to develop of ... for" -> the sentence is unclear

s.138: "the" -> "its"

fig. 2: list of abbreviations -> ASPIS is written in Italian

s.155: "within in" -> within or in

s.157: "forecasting, [..]" -> "forecasting [...],"

s.277: WT1400 -> "WT1400:"

s.286: "long term" -> "long-term"

s.333: "provide tools (provided" -> avoid tautology

s.338 "While ... while" -> it is better to reformulate

s. 368: \cdot between sentences is not needed, I believe

s.371 "based based" -> based

s. 421 "... and ... and ..." -> "... and ...., ..."

s. 428 "geomagnetic" -> "Geomagnetic"

s. 433 "cosmic ray data" -> "cosmic-ray detector data"

s. 471: "to the benefit" -> "to benefit"

s. 472: "widelyly" -> widely

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The paper presents an interesting platform for Space Weather research by notable authors in this field. I found minor English errors, which the authors need to rectify. Furthermore, some references are missed inside the text. Similarly, more consideration should be given on the writeup for easy understanding of the readers.  

 

Additional Comments:

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

CAESAR involves the majority of the space weather events collection and their datasets.

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

Yes a good research gap

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

It is a new platform as compared to previous researches.

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

English and Grammars mistakes, which I highlighted in my review form.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

yes

6. Are the references appropriate?

yes

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. No such comments.

Everything is ok

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has answered all my confusions and solved the problems. Now the paper can be accepted.