Climate Change and Unalakleet: A Deep Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The originality, accuracy and completeness of the work are satisfactory.
2. The arrangements of references should be consistent throughout the references list.
3. The authors are suggested to revise some typing errors in the manuscript.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1351174

Title: Climate Change and Unalakleet: A Deep Analysis

 

Review

This manuscript is so different from the papers I have read or reviewed in Sustainability, that I have feeling it was rejected from journals like Ambio, or initially targeted to it. Manuscript is nice, and I would like to see it printed, however there are several things to do before acceptance.

 

General comments

Manuscript is written not according the style of Sustainability; please refer to Template.

Sources should be referred in the form of [number], and References numbered in the order of appearance.

Type of the paper is more Review than Article (for Editors to decide).

 

Abstract: I would be nice to read 1–2 sentences what you GOT, not what you DID and how.

Line 13: mistype

Keywords: I propose change of some keywords to differ from the Title; this will work more effectively in the search engines

Introduction

Lines 31–38 could be moved closer to the end of Introduction, to form a scene for the Aim of this work.

Material and Methods

Lines 104–109 and 120–124 are not methods, it should be better move these to Introduction

Lines 115, 137, 139 and further: numbers in the range must be separated by long dash, –

Line 125: scientific names of the species should be presented at the first use

I also advise to avoid footnotes, as these are not common in Sustainability. At least 2, 3 can be easily moved to the text.

Results

Source in the footnote 4 should be given as reference

Well, 3.1 looks like Study site, maybe some information from here could be moved to Material and Methods?

Line 221: abbreviation WAH should be explained at the first use, not later

Line 270 and further: please use dates in uniform way (see Introduction)

Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4: column Reference is wasting space; propose to give number of the reference after the text in first column

Lines 355–362: references needed

Figure 4: two different forms of the time period, please use xxxx–xxxx only

Lines 472, 474, 497–499 and elsewhere: scientific names of the species must be italicized

Discussion

Comparing to Results, Discussion is very short. Maybe it could be better balances by moving part of the text from results (referenced, that is cited) here?

Conclusions

Too long and not structured. Again, part of the Conclusions text is referenced, therefore suitable to be added to discussion.

References

Reference 1. Is it full source? Can it be traced?

References 4, 5 and many other: are these from http://www.snowchange.org? please cite source in full; it must be traceable.

For all websites, accession date must be presented, see Template

References 17 and 18 must be the same source

References 37 and 38 must be the same source

References 41 and 42 must be the same source

References 47 and 48 must be the same source

References 52 and 53 must be the same source

References 56 and 57 must be the same source

References 58 and 59 must be the same source

Reference 89 – some information missing

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf