DUACS DT2014: the new multi-mission altimeter data set reprocessed over 20
years

Pujol, Marie-Isabelle; Faugère, Yannice; Taburet, Guillaume; Dupuy, Stéphanie; Pelloquin, Camille; Ablain, Michael; Picot, Nicolas

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/os-12-1067-2016

Articles | Volume 12, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-12-1067-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/os-12-1067-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 5

Research article

|

09 Sep 2016

Research article |

| 09 Sep 2016

DUACS DT2014: the new multi-mission altimeter data set reprocessed over 20 years

Marie-Isabelle Pujol, Yannice Faugère, Guillaume Taburet, Stéphanie Dupuy, Camille Pelloquin, Michael Ablain, and Nicolas Picot

Download

Final revised paper (published on 09 Sep 2016)
Preprint (discussion started on 18 Jan 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'An important new data set, but the description needs to be much more informative and clearly written.', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Feb 2016
- AC1: 'Answer to anonymous Referee #1', Marie-Isabelle PUJOL, 18 Apr 2016
RC2: 'Comments on “DUACS 1 DT2014: the new multi-mission altimeter dataset reprocessed over 20 years”', Dudley Chelton, 12 Feb 2016
- AC2: 'Answer to the Referee 2', Marie-Isabelle PUJOL, 18 Apr 2016

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Marie-Isabelle Pujol on behalf of the Authors (27 Apr 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 May 2016) by Eric J.M. Delhez

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (31 May 2016)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Review of "DUACS DT2014: the new multi-mission altimeter dataset reprocessed over 20 years" (V2) by M.-I. Pujol, et al. - 2016-05-31.

This second revision of the manuscript, describing the new multi-mission DT2014 altimetry data set, has improved significantly in response to the first round of reviewer comments. As emphasized in those first reviews, the AVISO/DUACS data set is widely used both within and outside of the altimetry community. Therefore, this paper is an important publication that documents the methodology of and improvements in DT2014, particularly when compared to the previous DT2010.

In spite of the improvements between V1 & V2, my biggest complaint is that the article still suffers from structural problems and a lack of focus. Some of the structural problems include: a mixture of referring to previous sections by name, while at other times by number; introducing comparison methodologies in one section, while presenting the comparison itself in another (e.g. "Comparison between gridded products and independent along-track measurements" and later "DT2014 gridded product error estimates at the mesoscale and error reduction compared to DT2010"); the figure numbering is out of order; and the section numbering (as least in the PDF I reviewed) was inconsistent with section numbers 'resetting' several times. The lack of focus comes about due to the overly long article duration as well as the inclusion of too many detailed comparisons. The writing still needs to be streamlined and the points to be made better organized. One specific recommendation I would make is to be more forthcoming about the details of the processing procedures, and spend less time on the minutae of the comparisons. For example, it would be very helpful for users of the gridded product to see maps of the temporal and spatial correlation parameters for the gridding process, as well as the estimated measurement errors and propagation parameters.

This article has a lot of potential, and deserves at least one more significant editing pass to tell a clearer story about how the data set is derived, and how it compares to the earlier version. There is no lack of available figures to present, but in fact the weakness now is that the most thoughtful choice of figures to include hasn't been done. Again, this is an important data set to document, and the article should do it justice. I feel that a major revision is still required to achieve that goal. I've attached a PDF with markup (pop-up notes) to indicate specific edits and comments.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

RR by Graham Quartly (06 Jun 2016)

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (14 Jun 2016) by Eric J.M. Delhez

AR by Marie-Isabelle Pujol on behalf of the Authors (26 Jul 2016) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (27 Jul 2016) by Eric J.M. Delhez

RR by Ananda Pascual (10 Aug 2016)

ED: Publish as is (17 Aug 2016) by Eric J.M. Delhez

AR by Marie-Isabelle Pujol on behalf of the Authors (22 Aug 2016)