The paper describes a novel approach to permafrost PJI tested in different sites of Tien Shan and Pamir. The paper is well written, with rigorous description of the methodologies adopted. Conclusions are fully supported by the relevant results. The only criticism I have is about the paper length ( 52 pages) that makes the manuscript hard to read. In my opinion  the authors jointed 2 works that may be separated in 2 different contributions helping the reading: a work about the relevant permafrost characterisation of the remote studied areas, and a work about the novel PJI-GM approach and its comparison with the more common PIJ-AR. I obviously leave to the editor the decision about suggesting the splitting or not.   

I suggest to sum up the discussion avoiding some repetition as in ln540, and  to insert before the most relevant findings (e.g. Ln625-635) , and the important landforms / ice content relations.

  I noted some typo that need corrections:

LN 472 Sentence about support of  higher standard deviation not clear

LN 531, 533, 556 typo figures numbers

The paper presents an extensive dataset of geophysical measurements (ERT and RST) collected from various sites across the Tien Shan and Pamir regions. For the interpretation of these datasets, the authors thoroughly explore the potential of petrophysical joint inversion (PJI) using the resistivity geometric mean model (PJI-GM) and partially compare it with the more commonly used PJI based on Archie's Law (PJI-AR).

The study is well-written and provides a detailed and rigorous description of the methodologies employed. However, it lacks a brief discussion comparing the inversion schemes in terms of convergence metrics (e.g., chi² and/or RMSE).

Beyond this observation, I have included additional comments in the manuscript attached to this review and recommend minor revisions or technical corrections to the paper.

This paper employs the Petrophysical Joint Inversion (PJI) method, combining the Geometric Mean Model and Clustering approach to quantify the ground ice content of mountain permafrost across different landforms. It compares these results with those obtained using Conventional Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) Inversion and Archie's Law (PJI-AR) methods, evaluating the applicability of PJI-GM in mountain permafrost under various landforms. This study fills a data gap regarding the extent of ground ice in the Tien Shan and Pamir regions (Central Asia) and analyzes the respective advantages and disadvantages of PJI-GM and PJI-AR in mountain permafrost areas. The research is at the forefront of the field, the overall logic of the paper is clear, and I recommend acceptance after necessary revisions. Below are specific suggestions for modifications:

• Line 202: The authors mentioned using a modified PJI approach, which appears to refer to the PJI-GM method. However, in the introduction, the authors state that Mollaret et al. (2020) proposed the PJI-GM method (Line 107). It is unclear what are the modifications compared to Mollaret et al. (2020).
• Line 292: Although authors mentioned defining the zone of interest (ZOI) for each profile according to the method of Hilbich et al. (2022) to calculate the potential ground ice content, I suggest that the authors provide a detailed explanation of how the ZOI is defined, as the extent of the ZOI directly affects the subsequent calculation of ground ice content for each profile.
• Line 294: The term "zone of interest" seems to refer to Figure A2 rather than Figure A1.
• Line 313: "(Rücker et al., 2017)" should be changed to "Rücker et al. (2017)".
• Line 363: "Figure A" should refer to "Figure A3," right?
• The subfigure numbering format in all figures within the paper is inconsistent. Some use lowercase letters (a., b., c., d.), while others use uppercase letters (A, B, C, D).
• Figure 5a: The y-axis is missing a label, and the legend of the colorbar could be adjusted slightly to the right.
• Figure 8: What do the blue dotted lines on the surface represent? I did not find an explanation in the legend.
• Figure 11: A label indicating depth should be added to the y-axis.
• Figure 13: Similarly, a label indicating depth should be added to the y-axis.
• Lines 531, 533, and 556: The references to figures in the text are incorrect.
• Line 190: The extra question mark seems to indicate an incorrect citation?