Dear Authors

I received two reviews, with a rating below average. Both reviews acknowledge (to some degree) the novelty of the methods, but were not convinced by the small number of measurements. I suggest two possible ways to continue with the paper.

- the paper can be reconsidered as a full length article after additional measurements have been done. In my view, this would also require that at least a few "ice layers" are measured by micro-CT, especially concerning their bubble content.

- shorten the paper to the size of a "Brief communication". I think this should be rather straightforward, especially the introduction and conclusion. The method proposed is in my view not (yet) a standard, but a useful methodological addition to the special issue.

Best regards,
Martin Schneebeli
Editor TC

Dear Authors
I received now two conflicting reviews for this paper. One review is rather favourable to a publication, one reviewer clearly denies scientific relevance with low ratings. Based on these conflicting views, I read the manuscript in detail and made the final decision to reject as explained below.

First, the method can not be called "new" (line 40 ff), it is based on Archimedes principle, and was used by Marsh and Woo (1984). What is new is the use of a camera (why the authors did not use a graduated cylinder remains open), and the calculation of the effect of bubbles on the surface of ice samples. This rather minor modifications do not make the measurement of ice layer density that much faster or more precise to warrant publication.

The results of the observed 4 layers (two of them artificial) and the measured 87 samples out of these layers shows that measuring porosity in ice samples is associated with a rather large error - not in density, but in porosity. The very limited number of layers does not justify a general statement about "ice layer density".

The observed ice layers have a higher mean density than other observations, but the other "ice layers" or "ice crusts" may have formed under different conditions, a point which is beyond the presented data, but necessary to be a general contribution to the topic.

I struggled to identfy in the end what is novel about this study and if the presented data are sufficient for publication.

In summary, I deem this manuscript not suitable for publication in The Cryosphere. I regret not to have better news.

Best regards
Martin Schneebeli
Editor TC

Dear Nick, dear Co-Authors

Thank you for your letter to reconsider the rejection of the paper "Brief communication: Improved measurement of ice layer density in seasonal snowpacks”. I stated that the two reviews are conflicting. The ratings of reviewer #2 (1 x good, 3 x fair) clearly indicate that he judges the paper not publishable according to the rules of TC.

I agree with your argument that detailed data on ice layer density are lacking, and this paper is a first step to improve the situation. You could make the point that ice layers are indeed very close to the density of solid ice. Concerning the applied methods, I have the definite personal opinion that more would have been possible, but this is not the place to discuss this.

Reconsideration of the recjection also brings in a formal issue:

• Brief communications are timely, peer-reviewed, and short (2–4 journal pages). These may be used to (a) report new developments, significant advances, and novel aspects of experimental and theoretical methods and techniques which are relevant for scientific investigations within the journal scope; ... . Brief communications have a maximum of 3 figures and/or tables, a maximum of 20 references, and an abstract length not exceeding 100 words. The manuscript title must start with "Brief communication:". To encourage these timely, short, and focused papers, their layout is different from other types of manuscripts and they therefore cost less per page than research articles. (http://www.the-cryosphere.net/about/manuscript_types.html)

The current size of the paper exceeds these requirements, as the length is too long (by about one third) and there are too many figures and tables (1 table, 5 figures).

I reconsider my decision, if you agree to shorten the paper to these requirements. In my view, figs. 3-5 are not not essential to the manuscript. I also think that the error analysis can be substantially shortend.

Yours sincerely

Martin Schneebeli
Editor TC

Dear Authors
The revised manuscript can be published, and will add to a better understanding of ice layers in snow packs. Thank you for considering TC for publication.
Best regards
Martin Schneebeli
Editor TC