Dear authors,

As you have seen, both reviewers find the topic of your manuscript of general interest. Reviewer #2, however, points out a striking similarity of a recent paper of your group. Unfortunately, upon closer inspection, I fully agree with reviewer #2 and see the same problems with the current paper as (s)he does. For these reasons the manuscript cannot be considered for publication in its current state as it requires quite some substantial reworking.

In principle, I would be fine with receiving a substantially revised version of the manuscript that (1) unambiguously identifies material directly taken from Timbe et al. (2014), (2) makes it clear why in some cases only a selective choice of data, etc. from Timbe et al. (2014) was used, (3) fully addresses in detail *all* reviewer comments and, most importantly, that (4) can be considered as a standalone paper with a significant, new (i.e. not from Timbe et al., 2014) scientific contribution. This additional scientific understanding, building on that previous paper, needs to be identified and discussed in a much clearer and detailed way, so as to provide the reader an unambiguous distinction between the two papers.

Best regards,

Markus Hrachowitz

Dear authors,
Thank you for the revised version of your manuscript, in which you thoughtfully addressed the concern of the manuscript not being standalone. I agree with the assessment of the reviewer that this new version is an interesting contribution to literature and I will be glad to accept it for publication once the minor technical corrections suggested by the reviewer are dealt with. I am looking forward to receive a revised/corrected version as soon as possible. Best regards, Markus Hrachowitz