The Space and Terrestrial Weather Variations as Possible Factors for Ischemia Events in Saint Petersburg
, Elena G. Golovina 2, Sergei N. Noskov 3,4, Gennady B. Eremin 3 and Sergei A. Gorbanev 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript considers an interesting topic; However, changes should be made before it was ready for publication. Here are my recommendations:
Annotation: it is necessary to improve. It took a long time to get to the bottom of it.
Discussion: No discussion with other publications.
Half of all publications listed are over 10 years of age. This list is completely incomplete.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for you comments. They were useful for us. Please see the attachment with our responses to them
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
To Authors
- It needs include more citations in the “Introduction”, with references to recent work in solar-terrestrial links and the effects of space weather on the human body.
- The fragment in the section of the “Materials and methods” devoted to the "errors" in the research or thinking of other authors requires revision. This "Excursus" into other researcher's errors, firstly, should be confirmed by citing of the corresponding authors, secondly, it should be shorted and, thirdly, it should be put into discussion, where an advantage of own author's approaches, in comparison with the "error's research ways" of other authors, need be demonstrate.
- Figure 1 needs in correction. It would be better to change the term used in the paper "Earth vicinity processes" with one "near-Earth space", accepted in the geophysical research. And to introduce a very important block in the block sequence on the Figure 1, that defines ground-based events: magnetosphere-ionosphere interactions, instead of "ionosphere processes". It should also be clarified which geomagnetic field variations the authors mean in the third block of Figure 1: Magnetic field variations in near-Earth space or terrestrial variations, as a consequence of magnetosphere-ionosphere interactions.
- The definition of "norm" bases only one reference, although this concept is fundumental in physiology and is widely discussed in the scientific literature. Ii would be like to see a wider citation relatively understanding of this termin.
- Figure 2 is poorly readable, so it needs to be modified, made more understandable, and the quality of the figure needs to be improved.
- In the section “Results”, fragment of the text (lines 600-619) could be moved to the “Materials and methods”.
- The numbering of figure 4 in the text is most likely a technical error and the comments to figure 4 should be referred to figure 5 or 6. The authors should check it.
- The section of “Discussion” needs in revision. It is necessary to compare own results of the authors with the results of other researchers and emphasize the novelty of the own results in this section.
- The section "Conclusion" of the article it is needs to extend, may be, by moving the summary of their own results presented in the "Discussion" to the "Conclusion".
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you very much for your detailed comments. They for significant useful for us. Please see the attachment with our responses to them.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I like author(s) holistic approach to this theme.
Figure 1. is very illustrative.
Excellent introduction with the overview of the possible mistakes in the research where both object of examination and environment are complex systems.
Excellent argumentation of the purpose, goals and procedure of the research.
I didn’t notice that author(s) mentioned the software(s) they used. It should be mentioned.
Discussion is too short. What are the shortages and what are the advantages of their research? It should be mentioned and discussed in this part.
Conclusion is inadequate. At least authors should list the main results.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you very much for your opinion about our work and your useful comments. Please see the attachment with our responses to them.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors made a substantial improvement throughout the revised version of the manuscript addressing all the issues raised earlier and therefore recommended for publication.
