Dear Drs. Gil-Guirado, Pérez-Morales, Lopez-Martinez

Thank you for the submission of your very interesting manuscript “SMC-Floods database: A high resolution press database on floods for the Spanish Mediterranean Coast (1960-2015)”.

As you know, two reviewers have now provided detailed reviews, which you have replied in thoughtful detail to. One review recommended minor revisions and the other one recommends major revisions, and therefore I would like to invite you to submit a revised version of your manuscript.

Would you please also provide an ‘author’s reply’ to the reviewers (feel free to use the same words that you used in what you have already uploaded). Please can you also include a track changes document between the old manuscript and the new one (you can include this as part of your ‘author’s reply’) and upload the new version.

Thanks for the improvements you have done following my suggestions, particularly in the definition of flood case: “a flood case always corresponds to an affected municipality on a particular day, while an event may involve several municipalities and days”. In order to maintain this clarification, I would ask you to remind this criterion in “Table 2: SMC-Flood Database summary.” adding again this explanation and substituting TOTAL FLOODS by TOTAL FLOOD CASES. Please, use always the expression “flood cases” when you are referring to it in order to avoid any confusion.

I look forward to seeing the next version of your manuscript which I will then send out for further review to either the previous reviewers (if they agree) or new reviewers.

Regards
María Carmen Llasat
NHESS Editor
Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Barcelona 

Dear Drs. Gil-Guirado, Pérez-Morales, Lopez-Martinez

Thank you very much for your interesting paper. As you know, two reviewers have now provided detailed reviews of your revised version. It is a pleasure for me telling you that both have both referees coincide in their dictamen and accept to publish your paper after some technical corrections.

Referee 1 tell you that the phrase “‘High spatiotemporal database’ is not appropriate and does not mean anything.” I haven’t found this expression and you can maintain high resolution database. The second referee proposes some little changes that you should introduce in the definitive version.

Line 29, page 10. The sentence “This calculation informs that, in the SMCM, each flood affects
30 an area of 119 km2” is not correct. You can say the “mean municipal area affected by a flood case is 119km2”. In consequence, modify also line 25 page 18

Besides this, in my last report I have asked you for introducing the expression flood case in all the parts of the text in which you are referring the flood affectation in a municipality. However, they are still some sentences in the Results in which you have don’t do it, not in the text neither in the figures (i.e. Figure 7 axe y is flood cases not flood, and the same in the text in the foot of this figure). Please, review with accuracy the document and substitute flood by flood case when necessary. This is particularly important in the part devoted to trend analysis and spatial analysis. Why is this question so much important? Because readers can reproduce your words/information and propagating a nonsense data. As example, following Figure 7, in 1989 were produced 200 floods in the Spanish Mediterranean Region (the correct text would be 200 flood cases”)

I look forward to seeing the next version of your manuscript that I hope will be able to be published directly.

Regards
María Carmen Llasat
NHESS Editor
Full Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Barcelona