Remote Sensing and Landsystems in the Mountain Domain: FAIR Data Accessibility and Landform Identification in the Digital Earth

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript provides unique views. Although some writings may sound speculative or ambiguous, the overall work looks meaningful as a review/conceptual paper. So, I propose acceptance after the author considers the issues below.

- The introduction needs to be longer.

- The author tried to follow the most common structure of a geoscience paper: 1) Introduction, 2) Materials and Methods, 3) Results, 4) Discussion, and 5) Conclusions. However, the contents of this paper differ from typical original papers showing a case study in a specific place. Therefore, the current headings of Sections 2 and 3 look strange to me. Section 2 introduces relevant concepts with literature reviews but does not show data. So, a different heading, such as "Background Concepts," looks better to me.  Section 3 does not look like typical "results" either. It often shows the author's considerations supported by literature reviews. In other words, it contains discussion. So, please use a different heading. I also suggest the heading of Section 4 be "General Discussion," not mere "Discussion," because Section 3 already includes discussion. 

- The Conclusions section includes the phrase, "The main conclusions can be listed:" However, it is not followed by items 1 to 6. Instead, it is followed by two sentences before the items appear. This looks strange.

Author Response

This manuscript provides unique views. Although some writings may sound speculative or ambiguous, the overall work looks meaningful as a review/conceptual paper. So, I propose acceptance after the author considers the issues below.

I see where you are coming from. However, the [dLL] is now well established and I want to bring it into the RS literature better, especially regarding geomorphological features. I have made some small changes which I hope will make it less speculative.

 

- The introduction needs to be longer.

I have done this and tried to make it more applicable in light of some of the other referee comment as well as my previous response about speculation.

 

• The author tried to follow the most common structure of a geoscience paper: 1) Introduction, 2) Materials and Methods, 3) Results, 4) Discussion, and 5) Conclusions. However, the contents of this paper differ from typical original papers showing a case study in a specific place. Therefore, the current headings of Sections 2 and 3 look strange to me. Section 2 introduces relevant concepts with literature reviews but does not show data. So, a different heading, such as "Background Concepts," looks better to me.  Section 3 does not look like typical "results" either. It often shows the author's considerations supported by literature reviews. In other words, it contains discussion. So, please use a different heading. I also suggest the heading of Section 4 be "General Discussion," not mere "Discussion," because Section 3 already includes discussion.

I agree!  It was originally a little more as you suggest but when I noticed the format notes I decided to put it in ‘traditional’ style.  I have now used your suggestions, thank you. They are shown in the revisions document and implemented in the 'clean text'

- The Conclusions section includes the phrase, "The main conclusions can be listed:" However, it is not followed by items 1 to 6. Instead, it is followed by two sentences before the items appear. This looks strange.

Now changed and the conclusions (and statements elsewhere) made more positive in the light of your first comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article contains some interesting and important points. However, the structure of the paper is blurred (the Methods chapter should be focused on methods used, the Results should concisely show only results obtained, and not research questions!). The text is also too wordy: the same information could be conveyed more briefly.

Moreover, the Author has a wrong understanding of permafrost and rock glaciers. I agree that there is an unclear boundary between debris-covered glacier and a rock glacier, however this does not exclude the glacial-derived rock glacier from permafrost domain. Besides, melting glacier ice can become the interstitial ice (cement ice). The Author should make some more study of the periglacial literature, before criticizing some periglacial concepts (like: „rock glaciers are indicative of permafrost”. Yes, if they are active, they are indicative of it).

Language requires some corrections (especially punctuation).

Detailed comments are put of the pdf file (the manuscript).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language requires some corrections (especially punctuation).

Author Response

The article contains some interesting and important points. However, the structure of the paper is blurred (the Methods chapter should be focused on methods used, the Results should concisely show only results obtained, and not research questions!). The text is also too wordy: the same information could be conveyed more briefly.

 

Ok, I have modified in the light of these comments as well as another referee and can be seen in the modified text.

 

Moreover, the Author has a wrong understanding of permafrost and rock glaciers. I agree that there is an unclear boundary between debris-covered glacier and a rock glacier, however this does not exclude the glacial-derived rock glacier from permafrost domain. Besides, melting glacier ice can become the interstitial ice (cement ice). The Author should make some more study of the periglacial literature, before criticizing some periglacial concepts (like: „rock glaciers are indicative of permafrost”. Yes, if they are active, they are indicative of it).

This is not the place for a detailed discussion on rock glaciers.  However, your last statement, that RG are indicative of permafrost is NOT correct. Further, your use of ‘periglacial’ is ambiguous as also your comment about ‘glacially-derived rock glaciers’ not being excluded from the ‘permafrost domain’. I have a perfectly clear understanding of permafrost, glaciers and rock glaciers that is upheld by continuum mechanics, in situ field observations (which is the point of my paper) as well as many more authors-who are just disregarded by the ‘rock glacier =permafrost’ community.  If you disagree you should write a challenge when the paper is published! I have made some adjustments to accommodate some of your points, re ‘talus rock glaciers’ but to point out how remote sensing technology could test some of these ideas about, for example, talus creeping permafrost.

 

Language requires some corrections (especially punctuation).

Detailed comments are put of the pdf file (the manuscript).

Thank you for these. I have made all the minor and punctuation errors. I think I must have submitted the penultimate edit before correcting most of these errors.  The changes are shown on the 'change' document and implemented in the 'clean' version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

    This manuscript highlights the transformative role of satellite imagery in mapping terrestrial landforms, while addressing the challenges of ground truth validation in rugged terrains. It introduces a new decimal format for geolocation, enhancing data integration and accessibility in line with FAIR principles. The study also delves into the geomorphic significance of rock glaciers, revealing their true nature as glacier-derived landforms rather than indicators of permafrost. The manuscript requires minor revisions. Further clarification is needed on the following issues. 

Comments:

1.         In SEC 3.4, the relationship between the conclusion and dLL remains indiscernible. 

2.         The linkage between the inability of RG to serve as the criterion for permafrost and the utilization of dLL is not conspicuously presented. 

3.         Will decimal geolocation data cause a large amount of data for the latitude and longitude variables in remote sensing data? 

4.         The application scenarios of dLL are mostly for remote sensing data on a single grid point. Will it have any influence on gridded remote sensing data? In addition, while the level grid point is used for the slope area, who can you consider the deformation between level and inclined surfaces?

5.         Commonly, remote sensing data can furnish latitude and longitude data. Kindly emphasize on introducing where the superiority of dLL lies in contrast to other formats of latitude and longitude.

 

Author Response

  This manuscript highlights the transformative role of satellite imagery in mapping terrestrial landforms, while addressing the challenges of ground truth validation in rugged terrains. It introduces a new decimal format for geolocation, enhancing data integration and accessibility in line with FAIR principles. The study also delves into the geomorphic significance of rock glaciers, revealing their true nature as glacier-derived landforms rather than indicators of permafrost. The manuscript requires minor revisions. Further clarification is needed on the following issues. 

1. In SEC 3.4, the relationship between the conclusion and dLL remains indiscernible.

 

Clarified and emphasised I hope. Please see the corrected copy.

 

1. The linkage between the inability of RG to serve as the criterion for permafrost and the utilization of dLL is not conspicuously presented.

Ok. I hope I have made this clearer in various places. In principle, the [dLL] acts as a unique identifier for any form of information, for example ground truth in images.

Will decimal geolocation data cause a large amount of data for the latitude and longitude variables in remote sensing data?

Not sure what you mean precisely but yes, [dLL] will produce more date. And the more the better as we have the tools of manipulate it. The main point I want to make is that in publishing results that use locations, a single, computer-findable and readable, value is required. This alone make data and information FAIR.

 

The application scenarios of dLL are mostly for remote sensing data on a single grid point. Will it have any influence on gridded remote sensing data? In addition, while the level grid point is used for the slope area, who can you consider the deformation between level and inclined surfaces?

 

Thanks for that comment, I have accentuated this in the text and conclusions. My response is that a [dLL] can refer to a topographic map, satellite image or DEM, all provide slope data at a point or averaged in an area appropriately.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Author has corrected the manuscript to the acceptable degree. Titles of the sections are changed so now the whole article looks better. I still hold a different view on some of the rock glacier (RG) issues, however, the differences are within the academic discussion. The aim of this paper is not to deepen our understanding of RG, but to improve usage of remote sensing data.

Some minor linguistic issues are still there, eg. on p. 10 there is a punctuation error: "...furrows on their surface. (National Research Council Canada, 1988 p. 75)"   The dot should be at the end of this sentence, not before the reference.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some minor linguistic issues are still there, eg. on p. 10 there is a punctuation error: "...furrows on their surface. (National Research Council Canada, 1988 p. 75)"   The dot should be at the end of this sentence, not before the reference.

Author Response

I have gone through the MS again and picked up a few further typos and punctuationerrors.

The remark you make about where the period comes in the quotation from the NRC Canada (page 10 line 328) is a matter of house style. The quotation itself does not include the source (NRC Canada,1988, p. 75), after all it contains the page reference, so it should follow the period as originally cites. If there was indeed a reference in the citation it would be included. As I say, this is really a house style  - although I have compled with your request.