|I would like to thank you the authors for replying to my questions. In my opinion, the authors completed a significant amount of our and substantially improved the first manuscript. I would like to recommend a number of minor revisions prior to the publication of the paper. More specifically, I would like to recommend to further clarify some concepts, and avoid colloquial/qualitative/vague sentences. The authors can find below a list of recommendations which they might (or might not) consider to further improve their manuscript.|
Page 2, line 13: “any alternate morphological units”: the definition of morphological units is provided later in the text (line 18), the authors might consider improving the readability of their manuscript by providing the definition in Line 13.
Page 2, paragraph 1.1: I understand the choice of using sub-paragraphs to improve the organization of the introduction, however, I found this part of the manuscript a bit abrupt. I suggest adding a sentence to clarify the consequentiality between different paragraphs.
Page 3, lines 19-21: could please the authors reword this sentence? Some of the terms are colloquial.
Page 4, lines 6-8: these lines repeat lines 14-15 in page 1.
Page 5, line 4: is “efficiency” the most appropriate term here?
Page 5, lines 6-7: the authors might consider adding a sentence or two the explain why a new method was required. I believe that such an explicit explanation would clarify the scientific relevance of this work.
Page 6, line 19: why did the authors use inverted commas for the word continuous?
Page 6, line 20: “The” should not be capitalised.
Page 6, lines 21-24: albeit the authors’ strategy is reasonable, I believe that adding a few sentences to explain the reasoning underpinning the choice of the variables would increase the scientific soundness of the paper.
Page 6, lines 28-29: I suggest explaining here the motivations that led to the choice of the BDT method as a reference (I am aware that this choice is explained later in the test, however, I feel that adding an explanation here would improve the readability of the manuscript).
Page 8, line 5: I recommend replacing “it seems” with a sound explanation.
Page 9, line 8: I think that the adjective “interesting” is too vague. The authors might consider adding one or two sentences to explain what they mean with such a qualitative word (the readers can then check the appendix to learn all the details).
Page 10, line 14: “amounts” – do the authors mean “requires”?
Page 10, lines 16-20: I appreciate that the authors considerably improved the structure of their first manuscript, however, these lines contains significant references that belong to the literature review.
Page 11, line 20: “the extraction” OF…. I suggest improving the readability of this sentence.
Page 12, line 6: the authors might consider adding “that is” before “the region…” to improve the readability of the sentence.
Page 12, line 8: I suggest replacing “special” with something less colloquial. What does “special” mean in this context?
Page 12, line 11: is the reference to equation 8 correct?
Page 12, line 24: please remove “the” before “Eq.14”.
Page 15, lines 7-8: I suggest rewording this sentence to match the writing style of a scientific publication.
Page 15, lines 18-20: could please the authors clarify this sentence?
Page 16, line 10: could please the authors clarify the meaning of “which is corrected afterwards.”?
Page18, line 8: could please the authors reword “work onto an…”?
Page 19, lines 7-22: in my opinion, the readers can infer these pieces of information (by themselves) from the table. Could please the authors provide an in-depth interpretation of these results?
Page 19, line 24: could please the authors explain the choice of the word “interestingly”? How “interestingly”?
Page 21, lines 1-2: I believe that this result was somewhat expected. The authors might consider to further elaborate this concept.
Page 21, line 6: the BDT method has already been introduced. I suggest avoiding this repetition.
Page 21, line 7: the BDT method does not require expert judgement, however, is the BDT method accurate? Could please the authors provide some reference?
Page 22, line 14: could please the authors explain and reword “is done a sort of multiple calculations”?
Page 22, line 21: could please the authors replace “reasonable” with a quantitative or semi-quantitative assessment? In my opinion, “reasonable” is too vague.
Page 22, line 25: could please the authors elaborate on the potential reasons underpinning this “big difference”?
Page 24, lines 2-3: what is the difference between “benchmark” and “reference” in this context?
Page 25, line 17: the authors might consider adding a reference to the paragraph presenting the “good results” or a quantitative assessment.
Page 25, line 26: I believe that the authors meant to write “it presents”.
Page 25, line 28: please rephrase “we can say the same thing”.
Page 26, line 7: please reword “on the overall”.