Dear Dr. Gromova,

thank you for your efforts to respond to the comments by the two reviewers and for providing a revised version of the manuscript along with your answers. As the reviewers have numerous and minor and major comments, I will open your manuscript to a second round of reviews.

To do that, I invite you to provide us with a revision and answers to the reviewers similar to what you have submitted during the interactive discussion. I only recommend that you additionally include few extra details to several of your answers which may help reviewers and me to evaluate your revised manuscript and the changes from the original one in an easier and more efficient way. More specifically:

-Many of your answers especially to Reviewer 1 indicate that certain changes have been implemented, but these changes are not always described and their location in the revised manuscript is not given. The manuscript version which tracks changes certainly helps, but in several of your answers you indicate that certain parts of the text have been moved across different sections, and that is not always obvious through "tracked changes". As an example, your answer to Reviewer 1 on his/her general comment on the Discussion section is “We will emphasize this result more clearly” but the actions to do that were not described. For this and similar cases, please try to at least indicate where the relevant changes that were introduced can be sought (e.g. “Changes can be found in Lines … of the revised manuscript”).

-Reviewer 1 inquired whether a long averaging of the solar wind data (20-60 min) is better than the 1 min. averaged used. In your answer you only re-iterate that 1 min. average is used, but provide no justification why this averaging length is chosen, as requested by the reviewer. Please also clarify this point.

I am looking forward to receiving your article’s revision.

Kind regards,

Elias Roussos

Dear Dr. Gromova,

I have now received the reviews for the revision of your paper "Characteristics of the electrojet during intense magnetic disturbances". Both reviewers are satisfied with the revised version and answers to their comments, and we are therefore interested in publishing your manuscript in AnGeo. Before proceeding with a formal acceptance of your manuscript for publication, please consider but several points identified by Reviewer #1, which need clarifications or minor changes. These changes will be reviewed only by me and another round of referee reports wont be required.

Kind regards,

Elias Roussos