Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments:

The article analyzed 2 precipitation products from the GPM-IMERG over Sicily, Italy during 2016-2020 using statistical indices as well as proposed 4 multi-source merged models to seek potential improvement within a blending framework.

The manuscript is an original contribution to the topic of remote sensing of precipitation. The manuscript would be of interest for the readership of the journal.

The study novelty was heighted in the introduction section. However, I observed few weaknesses the authors should address. Below are my suggestions.

General opinion: The theoretical aspect is captured but the practical implication of the findings is missing in the discussion.

Title

Title is appropriate.

Abstract

The abstract reflects the content of the article. However, quantitative results presented are not adequate. Other quantitative results should be added (spatial analysis and sensitivity analysis results should be highlighted here).

Keyworks: the provided keywords are appropriate and would improve the article search results in the future or increase the article's visibility to a large audience.

Introduction

This section is clear and fluent. Aims of the study are properly clarified, and relevant references are included.

Minor comments

The study’s motivation not clearly highlighted. I suggest the authors link the motivation of the study to how this study bridges the gap between theory and practice.

Materials and methods

The methodology was standard and reproducible. This section presentation is fairly described.

Minor comment:

Authors should clarify issues of how data with different resolutions were resolved (e.g., PPWL-SMAP-L3E-9km, and SIAS etc.).

Results

This section is clear and presented in a logical sequence. The provided figures and table are clear and necessary for the presentation of the results. This discussion seems reasonable and are supported by the results.

It should be improved based on the following comments.

Major comments

This section is lengthy. Several parts of this section need to be shorted.

Conclusions

This section is lengthy. Several parts of this section need to be shorted. Preferably, this conclusion can be presented in bullets form

References

Relevant references are included in the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

No issues were detected. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1-Rewrite the title, it is very similar to the title of other articles.
2-The maps and figures are appropriate; only figure 2 should be improved.
3-I don't see any major issues with the manuscript, but when I searched the title, I found some articles about estimating precipitation. In the conclusion section, state and compare the results of your work with other studies.For example, please check this one:
Enhancing Precipitation Estimates Through the Fusion of Weather Radar, Satellite Retrievals, and Surface Parameters
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12081342

 

 

Moderate editing of English language

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please find comments in attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript has strong scientific sound, good logic, and nice writing. Therefore, it can be accepted in its current form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for addressing the comments.

Improved