Dear Dr. Hayward and coauthors
Thank you for the submission of your very interesting manuscript ““A comprehensive review of datasets and methodologies employed to produce thunderstorm climatologies”. As you know the process of peer review and publication in Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS) is a two-stage process involving the scientific discussion forum Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences Discussions (NHESSD). The first stage, corresponding to the open discussion has ended. From now on begins the second stage that follows the usual and non-public peer-reviewed process. I would like to remind you that the pass to the second stage is no guarantee whatsoever that the paper will be accepted for publication in NHESS. This will depend on the comments of the referees, and your ability to respond properly to the comments received.
As you know, two reviewers have now provided detailed reviews, which you have replied in thoughtful detail to. One review recommended major revision and the other one recommended minor revision and therefore I would like to invite you to submit a revised version of your manuscript. Besides their recommendations I am including the following ones:
- In Figure 2 put a line that joins each of the steps (questions) to follow, which will give greater continuity to the process.
- Separate table 1 into 4 tables and change the name so that they all answer the same question, the origin of the data for the elaboration of climatologies or thunderstorm catalogs. The first on "Manual observation data: spotter networks, archives and records", the second on "Remote sensing data on thunderstorms: satellite and radar", the third on "Remote sensing data on lightning: satellite and ground based", and the fourth on "Proxy data: Thunderstorm indices using reanalysis data".
- The texts in Figures 3 and 4 are a little fuzzy. Please try to make the letters better defined
Would you please also provide an ‘author’s reply’ to the reviewers (feel free to use the same words that you used in what you have already uploaded). Please can you also include a track changes document between the old manuscript and the new one (you can include this as part of your ‘author’s reply’).
I look forward to seeing the next version of your manuscript which I will then send out for further review to either the previous reviewers (if they agree) or new reviewers.
Regards
Maria Carmen Llasat

Dear Mr./Madam Hayward and coauthors,

The revised version of your manuscript NHESS-2020-25 entitled " A comprehensive review of datasets and methodologies employed to produce thunderstorm climatologies" as well as your letter with the answers, has been reviewed. I am very happy to grant conditional acceptance of the paper, subject to you making satisfactory revisions as the referee has asked for. The unique issue that he/she has found is the lack of some interesting references in some parts of the manuscript. She/he has proposed a list of references to be included. It is not necessary to include all of them, but I would propose you to include the major part of them.
Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to NHESS journal. I look forward to receiving your revision.
Sincerely,
Prof. Maria Carmen Llasat
NHESS Editor