Dear Anatoli:

So as you will have seen from the interactive discussion, some progress was made in moving this work towards publication, although perhaps not as much as I might have hoped. It seems that both referees are still struggling to identify 'substantial conclusions' in this version of the manuscript (and one of the referees was completely new to this draft, so that is a 'fresh' opinion). Formally both referees of this version have recommended the paper needs 'major revisions', and I see you have in your discussion replies suggested some quite substantial changes that could be made to the text and additional/revised figures.

So I will formally agree that the paper should be reconsidered after major revisions and a review of those changes by these 2 referees (who both agreed to look at it again). I suggest therefore that you formally upload a revised manuscript with the changes that you have suggested. Please feel free to include any other changes you feel it would be useful to make in order to properly deliver a sense of the substantial new conclusions to these referees as well as addressing their other points. Please make sure that you provide explicit revisions which address the referees statements such 'these conclusions not sufficient to advance our understanding of high-beta shocks and how the fluctuations are different from those in other shocks'. If you could formally also provide the old-style rebuttal and a marked up version of the manuscript it might help expedite the re-review.

I hope this way forward is clear.

Best wishes, Chris

Dear Anatoli:

Please find herewith the latest comments from the referees. I note that significant progress has been made with the paper since the original submission. One of the referees believes the paper to be acceptable, the other still has some reservations but in this case is more descriptive of the remaining issues. Both comment on there needing to be some improvement in the presentation/language. In order to try to bring this to a conclusion, I have looked closely at the paper, both in terms of content and presentation. I think I understand the referees positions, but conclude that there is new and publishable material in the paper. For this reason I do not wish to prolong the refereeing process much further, and believe that the work should be made available to the community for its judgement. However, both referees do make further comments that would improve the paper if they could be addressed. In addition, I attach a scan of scribbles I made on the manuscript while reading through it, which if nothing else I hope may indicate some parts where the language could be improved or clarified.

Overall, my decision is that the paper can be published subject to you considering the latest referee comments, and my mark-up, and making revisions accordingly. Please follow the usual procedure by providing a report on changes made and ideally a marked up version of the revised manuscript. At that point I will review changes myself, and if your changes seem consistent with the above requirement, I will formally accept the paper. I hope this way forward is clear and acceptable to you.

Best wishes,

Chris

Dear Anatoli:

Thanks for submitting your newly-revised version of the manuscript. I have reviewed this and accept you have done what I requested. Thus, as I previously anticipated, I do not see further merit in prolonging the discussion with the referees. I believe that the work should now be made available to the community for its consideration and judgement. I therefore formally accept the paper and expectt hat you will now hear from the production department in due course.

Thank you for your interest in publishing with Annales.

Best wishes,

Chris Owen