The paper provides a comprehensive regional synthesis of drought patterns, impacts, and research gaps across nine countries in Southeast Europe (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, and Slovenia). The authors integrate bibliometric analysis, Copernicus CDI v4 drought data, and impact assessments from the European Drought Impact Database (EDID) to characterize the region’s drought tendencies and vulnerabilities between 2012–2024. The study stands out for bridging scientific literature review, quantitative drought monitoring, and socio-economic impact assessment, effectively positioning itself as one of the first region-wide syntheses of drought science and governance in SEE.

This paper makes a substantial contribution to regional understanding of drought, bridging the gap between physical climate analysis and socio-economic impact research in Southeast Europe. It provides not only a valuable reference for policymakers but also a solid empirical foundation for future integrated drought risk assessments.

Minor changes:

L10-15 “This paper aims to uncover the drought research agenda … “, maybe agenda is not most appropriate word, maybe something like a “… drought research landscape … “, or something similar

L35-40 Can you explain or describe differently the phrase “nature-positive economy “

The manuscript addresses a highly relevant and timely problem and provides a substantial amount of valuable and up-to-date information. Overall, it is a strong and well-constructed study, and there are no major conceptual or methodological weaknesses that would undermine its scientific quality. My comments are therefore of a minor and mainly clarifying nature and focus on the following points:

1. I suggest limiting the use of acronyms in the abstract to an absolute minimum. Wherever possible, full names should be used (e.g., CDI, EDID), with abbreviations introduced and explained later in the methodology section. This would significantly improve the readability and accessibility of the abstract for a broader audience.

2. Does restricting the literature search exclusively to the SCOPUS database not risk systematically omitting important national and regional publications, including reports from governmental or agricultural institutions, documents related to farmer cooperation, and studies published in national languages?

3. Since the Combined Drought Indicator is primarily designed to capture vegetation stress, to what extent can it be reliably interpreted as a proxy for hydrological drought or for socio-economic drought impacts? Some clarification of this conceptual limitation would strengthen the interpretation of the results.