Overall, this is a well-written and thorough review paper on the current state of the research on drought in the Mediterranean region. Importantly, this paper makes clear the knowledge gap that exists in the literature on drought in the region, and makes a strong case for continued to research as the issue of drought is likely only going to get worse. I recommened for publishing after some minor revisions, as noted below.

Line 25: You define a new acronym for the Mediterranean Basin, but in the abstract you define an acronym for the Mediterranean Region - are these the same thing? If so, just stick to one acronym. It would also be a good idea to define the region in terms of the latitude/longitude bounding box.

Line 25: Plurality disagreement between “this kind” and “climate events” - suggested change: adaptation to this kind of climate event has been” 

Line 29: Need a comma after “For these reseasons”, and “Hotspot” doesn’t need to be capitalized

Line 37: You should cite something about desertification and biodiversity loss

Line 38: The sentence ends abruptly with “forthcoming”

Line 38: This sentence is awkward: “All these conditions exacerbate water stress that enhances in turn the probability of wildfire.” Suggested change: These conditions exacerbate water stress, which, in turn, enhances the probability of wildfire” 

Line 84: Latter should be later

Line 94: Focus should be focuses 

Line 197: No need for the “if”

Line 198: Suggest changing “this figure tends to” to “which is expected to”

Line 482: resources shouldn’t be plural

Lines 602-604: Could you expand on this thought a bit? I find it to end a bit ambiguous. Could you maybe describe some of the biases that exist in some of the models that would warrant exclusion from using them in the MEDR?

Section 5: You only mentioned one study (Bağçaci et al. 2021) that looked at CMIP6 GCMs. Are there more out there that you could review or is this a deficiency in the literature? If it is a deficiency in the literature, definitly drive that point home.

Lines 644-645: You may want to explain what SSPs are. This is the first introduction of them and in the previous section you really only mention the RCPs from CMIP5.

This article in question represents a potential valuable review that comprehensively examines the current state of knowledge in drought modeling and forecasting in the Mediterranean region. This work has compiled a remarkable amount of relevant useful information. However, I notice that there are still several confusing parts that need to be clarified. I have some suggestions and corrections (reported below) that may help to clarify the manuscript.

General comments:

1. It can be noted that the specific contribution and added value of this work is not completely clear. It is necessary to provide more details on the novelty and contributions of the present work relative to previous studies as for instance, Tramblay et al. (2020) and Hao et al. (2018).
2. It is critical to clearly and precisely differentiate between predictions and projections. In many cases, the terminology associated with these concepts can generate confusion by mixing them inappropriately.
3. It is crucial to clearly distinguish and specify the type of forecast considered, whether short-term or long-term, and to provide a precise definition of the time periods involved. This detailed specification is essential for effective communication and proper understanding.
4. It is necessary to improve the linearity and strengthen the organization of the text to achieve greater reading fluency. It is also important to adequately support the statements made with references. I think it might be beneficial to summarize the first part of the paper (sections 1-3) to avoid redundancies.
5. The figures presented in the document pose some difficulties in terms of clarity, as no information is provided on the sample used to generate the graphs, which prevents a correct interpretation of the graphs. In addition, a lack of consistency in the representation of the different prediction models is observed in Figure 4, where a separation is made for the statistical models, but the same is not done for the dynamic and hybrid models. Therefore, it is suggested to add a clear distinction between the latter methods.
6. It is important to clarify whether the studies mentioned are worldwide, for the Mediterranean or local. Although this distinction is made in Tables 1-7, it is not clear from reading the text.

Specific comments:

Line 12: remove 'extremes', as these are not always extreme events.

Lines 14-16: It would be appropriate to indicate the forecast scale, specifying whether it refers to the daily, monthly or decadal scale, as well as the type of drought considered, whether meteorological, agricultural or hydrological.

Lines 16-18: This is not clear, only for one forecast month?

Lines 32-38: This paragraph needs to be revised and improved. It would be advisable to provide references to support the statements made. In addition, it is suggested to introduce in advance the different types of drought before delving into modeling and prediction approaches.

Lines 38-39: It is recognized that a reference is missing at this point. It is suggested to read the study by Turco et al. (2017a) to get a better understanding on the mentioned topic.

Line 51: It is recommended to add 'generally', as this is not always the case: 'with generally decreasing precipitation values towards the south'.

Line 58: it is recommended to add a reference to this statement.

Line 60: It is not clear how far in advance is considered in this statement. It would be helpful to provide additional information on the lead time used.

Lines 64-67: I suggest to mention also climatology-based or persistence-based statistical models, as they represent possible baselines for drought prediction. For example, I suggest to include also the Ensemble streamflow prediction (ESP) system (Day, 1985; Twedt et al., 1977; AghaKouchak, 2014a; Turco et al., 2017b; Torres-Vázquez et al., 2023).

Line 80: I suggest to restructure this section together with lines 50-54, where a detailed description of the Mediterranean region is given.

Lines 91-95: It is necessary to provide more details on the novelty and contributions of the present work in relation to the previous study by Tramblay et al. (2020) and Hao et al. (2018).

Lines 106-107: Recommend adding a reference to this statement to adequately support it.

Lines 112-113: Change the citation structure to fit the appropriate form. For example, "see for example Crausbay et al. (2017) ..."

Line 120: It is recommended to add a reference to this statement to adequately support it.

Lines 124-136: It is recommended to refer to the definitions provided by WMO and IPCC to get a more precise understanding of the terms used in the context of droughts and climate change.

Line 139: It is not necessary to use the word 'onset'. It is recommended to remove it for clarity and conciseness.

Line 155: It should indicate what it correlates with to provide a more accurate understanding.

Line 157: The statement is not clear. It is recommended to rewrite or provide more details to improve the reader's understanding.

Line 167: It is recommended to consult the study by Vicente-Serrano et al. (2012).

Line 170: Change the citation structure to fit the proper form. For example: "Paulo. (2012) compared ..."

Line 177: It is recommended to add a reference to support this statement. Also, it is important to keep in mind that in many Mediterranean regions these crops may be controlled by irrigation systems.

Lines 178-179: It is recommended to add a reference to support this statement.

Lines 188-195: This statement is not correct. There are other techniques and methods to obtain soil moisture. It is recommended to read about this topic.  For instance, it is recommended Tramblay et al. (2019), Miralles et al. (2010) and Martens et al. (2017).

Line 196: It is recommended to add a reference to support this statement.

Line 223: Change the citation structure to fit the appropriate form.

Lines 234-236: Unclear, aspects such as whether it refers to SPI-12 or SDI-6 should be clarified.

Line 239: It is recommended to add a reference to support this statement.

Lines 250-251: This is not clear. The forecast time being referenced should be specified. For example, if seasonal forecasts are involved, they may be more reliable months in advance, whereas daily forecasts may have limitations from two weeks. We suggest reading the study by Lorenz (1963) for more information on this topic.

Lines 255-256: Where is it possible to accurately predict seasonal drought with a long lead time (>1 month)? It would be beneficial to provide additional details and references to support this statement.

Line 258: This statement corresponds to Doblas-Reyes et al. (2013), not the above reference.

Line 266: Can the NAO be predicted months in advance?

Lines 269-270: It is not clear, it is recommended to be more precise.

Line 279: It is suggested to use common indices that apply even in the Mediterranean, see, e.g. https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/

Lines 282-283: Change the citation structure to fit the proper form.

Lines 284-291: Suggest removing these recurring paragraphs to avoid redundancies in the article.

Lines 292-310: This should be structured together with lines 50-54 for better organization and understanding. It would be beneficial to review whether all the information provided on the physical characteristics of the Mediterranean region is relevant and consider deleting sections that do not add substantial value. For example, lines 307-310 may be reconsidered in terms of their relevance to the central theme of the article.

Line 328: The time scale used for the evaluation of model performance needs to be specified. For example, is it evaluated weekly, monthly, or on a decadal scale?

Line 336: It is recommended to add a reference to adequately support this statement.

Line 356: Change the citation structure to fit the appropriate form.

Line 358: better model to reproduce a forecast series?

Line 361: It is not clear what R2 is validated with.

Line 389: Change the citation structure to fit the appropriate form.

Lines 391-392: There is perceived to be missing information or a sense of incompleteness in this section. It would be advisable to revise and add additional details to provide a more complete explanation or clarify any aspects that may have been left out.

Line 402: It is necessary to specify for which waiting times are being referred to in this statement.

Line 410: It is recommended to add a reference to adequately support this statement.

Line 414: It would be interesting to clearly define the difference between 'forecasting' and 'modeling' to provide an accurate understanding of these terms and how they apply in the context of the article.

Line 415: Do you mean 'intelligent'? It would be helpful to clarify this term and provide more detail on its meaning and how it applies in the context of drought forecasting.

Line 416: Change the citation structure to fit the appropriate form.

Line 419: It is important to clarify whether this statement refers to a global scale or specifically to the Mediterranean area.

Lines 435-439: It is recommended to be consistent in the number of decimal places used. I suggest to use 2 decimal places.

Line 440: SVM is the same as SVMs?

Line 447-455: It is important to clarify whether this section is talking about modeling or forecasting.

Line 468: Change the citation structure to fit the proper form.

Line 492: It would be useful to review AghaKouchak et al. (2014b) for more information on this topic and to support the claim.Line 495: Reference is missing.

Line 500: It is important to clarify whether the studies mentioned are on a global scale or specific to the Mediterranean.

Lines 531-533: There is some recurrence in this section. It would be advisable to review and eliminate unnecessary repetitions to improve the flow and clarity of the text.

Lines 562-571: It is not clear whether this section is talking about climate change scenarios or seasonal forecasts.

Lines 601-602: This section was mainly discussing projections, however here we are back to talking about forecasts. It is important to clarify this point. 

Line 606: It is not clear why the word 'necessary' is used. It would be beneficial to provide a clearer and more substantiated explanation to support this statement.

Line 615: It is recommended to add a reference to adequately support this statement.

Line 633: It would be important to specify whether seasonal forecasting or decadal predictions are being discussed in this section. Clarifying the time frame will help readers better understand the context of the discussion." Regarding the comparison between dynamic and empirical forecasts, it would be useful to mention whether there are studies or articles that have made such a comparison. It is recommended to read the papers by Ceglar et al. (2017) and Turco et al. (2017b).

Line 642: This statement is not entirely accurate. While it is true that statistical models rely on historical data to make predictions, it does not necessarily mean that they cannot take climate changes into account.

Lines 644-646: There is constant confusion between projections and forecasts in this section.

Line 662: There are no pure dynamic models, as they usually apply bias adjustment techniques.

Line 668: There is a lack of references to support this statement. It is recommended to consult the works of Dutra et al. (2014); Mo and Lyon (2015); Yuan and Wood (2013), among others.

Lines 684-687: It is suggested to be consistent in the number of decimal places used, either 0 or 1 decimal place, throughout this segment of the text.

Lines 686-696: Explanation of the indexes used, including SPI, and other related terms, should be made the first time they are mentioned in the text. This explanation should be in the discussion section.

Lines 731-732: This sentence is not clear, since they do appear in Figure 4.

Line 735: It would be important to indicate the number of studies included in each boxplot to provide complete information on the analysis performed. In addition, it is suggested to include the ESP method in the analysis (for example, Torres-Vázquez et al., 2023). On the other hand, it would also be interesting to distinguish between the different dynamic or hybrid methods used in the analysis, in addition to the statistical methods.

Lines 737-740: It would be more appropriate to include this information in the legend of Figure 4.

Line 774: Is the major interest only in hybrid models and not in dynamic models?

Line 882: It is recommended to consult the works of Beck et al. (2019b) and of Turco et al. (2020).

Line 893: A detailed reading on GLEAM and SAFRAN is recommended. For instance, it is recommended Tramblay et al. (2019), Miralles et al. (2010) and Martens et al. (2017).

Lines 968-975: There is a clear confusion between projections and predictions.

Line 997: In reference to the cartographic rigor mentioned in this line, it would be useful to provide a more detailed explanation of what this refers to.

References.

AghaKouchak, A. (2014a). A baseline probabilistic drought forecasting framework using  standardized soil moisture index: application to the 2012 United States drought.  Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18 (7), 2485–2492. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2485-2014, 2014.

Aghakouchak, A. (2014b). Entropy–copula in hydrology and climatology. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 15(6), 2176-2189.

Beck, H.E., Wood, E.F., Pan, M., Fisher, C.K., Miralles, D.G., van Dijk, A.I.J.M., McVicar, T.R., Adler, R.F. (2019). MSWEP V2 global 3-hourly 0.1 precipitation: methodology and quantitative assessment. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 100, 473–500, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0138.1.

Doblas‐Reyes, F.J., García‐Serrano, J., Lienert, F., Biescas, A.P., Rodrigues, L.R.L. (2013). Seasonal climate predictability and forecasting: status and prospects. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 4, 245–268, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.217.

Day, G.N. (1985). Extended streamflow forecasting using NWSRFS. J. Water Resour. Plann. Manag. 111 (2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1985) 111:2(157).

Dutra, E., Pozzi, W., Wetterhall, F., di Giuseppe, F., Magnusson, L., Naumann, G., Barbosa, P., Vogt, J., Pappenberger, F. (2014). Global meteorological drought–Part 2: Seasonal forecasts. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18, 2669–2678, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2669-2014.

Hao, Z., Singh, V.P., Xia, Y. (2018): Seasonal Drought Prediction: Advances, Challenges, and Future Prospects. Rev. Geophys. 56, 108–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016RG000549

Lorenz, E. N. (1963). Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of atmospheric sciences, 20(2), 130-141.

Martens, B., Miralles, D.G., Lievens, H., van der Schalie, R., de Jeu, R.A.M., Fernández-Prieto, D., Beck, H.E., Dorigo, W.A., and Verhoest, N.E.C.(2017). GLEAM v3: satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture, Geoscientific Model Development, 10, 1903–1925

Miralles, D.G., Gash, J.H., Holmes, T.R.H., de Jeu, R.A.M., Dolman, A.J. (2010). Global canopy interception from satellite observations, Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, D16122

Torres-Vázquez, M. Á., Halifa-Marín, A., Montávez, J. P., & Turco, M. (2023). High resolution monitoring and probabilistic prediction of meteorological drought in a Mediterranean environment. Weather and Climate Extremes, 40, 100558.

Tramblay Y, Feki H, Quintana-Seguí P, Guijarro JA. (2019). The SAFRAN daily gridded precipitation product in Tunisia (1979–2015). Int JClimatol. 39:5830–5838. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.61815838

Tramblay, Y., Koutroulis, A., Samaniego, L., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Volaire, F., Boone, A., ... & Polcher, J. (2020). Challenges for drought assessment in the Mediterranean region under future climate scenarios. Earth-Science Reviews, 210, 103348.

Turco, M., von Hardenberg, J., AghaKouchak, A., Llasat, M. C., Provenzale, A., & Trigo, R. M. (2017a). On the key role of droughts in the dynamics of summer fires in Mediterranean Europe. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00116-9 

Turco, M., Ceglar, A., Prodhomme, C., Soret, A., Toreti, A., Francisco, J.D.-R. (2017b). Summer drought predictability over Europe: empirical versus dynamical forecasts. Environmental research letters 12, 084006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7859.

Turco, M., Jerez, S., Donat, M.G., Toreti, A., Vicente-Serrano, S.M., Doblas-Reyes, F.J. (2020). A global probabilistic dataset for monitoring meteorological droughts. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 101, E1628–E1644, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0192.1  

Twedt, T.M., Schaake Jr., J.C., Peck, E.L. (1977). National Weather Service extended  streamflow prediction [USA]. In: Proceedings Western Snow Conference.

Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S., Lorenzo-Lacruz, J., Camarero, J. J., López-Moreno, J. I., Azorin-Molina, C., ... & Sanchez-Lorenzo, A. (2012). Performance of drought indices for ecological, agricultural, and hydrological applications. Earth Interactions, 16(10), 1-27.

Quintana-Seguí, P., Turco, M., Herrera, S., & Miguez-Macho, G. (2017). Validation of a new SAFRAN-based gridded precipitation product for Spain and comparisons to Spain02 and ERA-Interim. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21(4), 2187-2201.

Yuan, X., Wood, E.F. (2013). Multimodel seasonal forecasting of global drought onset. Geophys Res Lett 40, 4900–4905, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50949.