Dear authors

Thank you for the revised version of your manuscript it has received two favorable reviews; one of them with some suggestions for improvement. This is an interesting but also unusual manuscript in terms of what it reports. It is nearly ready for publication.

My most important point is making it more concise. Much of the text can be shortened significantly by removing unnecessary fill words, clauses, or repetition. I would like you to give the text one more round of careful editing to shorten it by about 30%. Similarly, please reduce to 20 references. Below are a few minor edits and suggestions.

Furthermore, it would be good to explain better what a “priority research question” (P3L7) or a “highlighted research question” is. In Figure 1, this is described as “found most compelling”. But this could mean a number of things such as scientifically most intriguing, or having the greatest societal relevance. In my view, it is important to explain this as the value of presenting the five selected questions hinges upon what they were selected for.

P2L7–L10: Remove “These topics … planning (ICARP III)”

P2L14: The logic does not work, please change: Northern Hemisphere as well as alpine areas and Plateaus. “As well as” implies that the latter are in addition to the former but they are not.

P2L18: Permafrost is not an essential climate variable, but two metrics are. Please be more specific.

P5L15 Delete “in the … landscapes”

P4L31 Delete “of currently degrading sites” and “and recovery”

P5L8 Delete “monitoring and”

P6L6 “permafrost conditions” insert blank space

P7L5 do you mean “disturbances SUCH as ice melt”

P7L12 “buried glacier ice would be”

P7L13 “… to create terrain sensitivity maps.”

P7L17 Biskarbon et al 2015 is not a suitable reference for GTN-P as a program.

P7L26 “The economic development in permafrost regions is facing….”

I look forward to reading your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,
Stephan Gruber

Dear authors

Thank you for the shortened and revised version of your manuscript, and for your reply to the issues raised by the reviewers and by myself. From your reply, three topis arise that need to be addressed before publication. The first two relate to the quality of the argument you make.

(A) Concerning the definition of a “priority research question” or “highlighted research question”, you have referred to Sutherland et al. (2011). The questions you formulate as headings 4.1 to 4.5, however, appear to not fulfill your own criteria. Especially “Answerable through a realistic research design”, “Not answerable with ‘it all depends’, “Of a spatial and temporal scope that reasonably could be addressed by a research team”, and “Not formulated as a general topic area”. Please find a way to resolve this issue, e.g., by referring to them using a differing term (“topic”?). Furthermore, if the criteria put forward by Sutherland et al. (2011) were used in defining questions and the results do not conform to them, this sheds a strange light on the process. This should be resolved in great clarity.

(B) You write “Finally, a ‘priority research question’ or a ’highlighted research question‘ is a research question that was formulated and democratically selected/prioritized by the community.” This does not fully address my concern (“this could mean a number of things such as scientifically most intriguing, or having the greatest societal relevance. In my view, it is important to explain this as the value of presenting the five selected questions hinges upon what they were selected for.”). It would be good if you could include a short sentence (like the one above) explaining what a priority/most urgend/highlighted research question (topic?) is, and that in their selection, community members were using subjective criteria as to what values to use in prioritizing.

(C) While I see the appeal of inserting a reference here, I still disagree with your argument on keeping the reference to Biskarbon et al 2015. This manuscript describes a database; its conclusions relate to data handling, not to GTN-P or its primacy as a program. While it is a (maybe the only one) reference to GTN-P it does not provide backup for the statement you make. Please remove.

I look forward to one more round of revisions.

Kind regards,
Stephan Gruber