Dear Marlon,

Your paper “Tree-based mesh-refinement GPU accelerated tsunami simulator for real time operation“ has been critically reviewed by outside peer reviewers. After the discussion round, the reviewers recommend reconsideration of your paper following major revision. We invite you to resubmit your corrected manuscript after addressing all reviewer comments.

When resubmitting your manuscript, please carefully consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments. For a revised manuscript version, in order to make easier and faster for the reviewers to check the final manuscript, we require two separate documents:
1. Author response, it is Revision Notes explaining how and where (citing line number) each point of the Editor's/Reviewers' comments has been addressed. Should you disagree with any part of the reviews, please explain why. At the end of this revision notes a version of the revised manuscript showing the new/changed text using track changes or highlighting. To facilitate further review, add line numbers in the text.
2. A version of the revised manuscript without showing the new/changed text using track changes or highlighting.
Final acceptance is, however, contingent upon satisfactory revision along the lines suggested. Please be sure to upload your revised manuscript back to the electronic database.
Sincerely,
Mauricio González

Dear Mr. Arce,
Your corrected version of the paper “Tree-based mesh-refinement GPU accelerated tsunami simulator for real time operation” has been satisfactorily revised for the reviewers. I am pleased to report that the results of the peer review process are favorable and that the reviewers recommend publish as is. Thus, I agree with their recommendations and I accept to publish the paper as is.
Sincerely,
Mauricio González