Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Annales Geophysicae. I received the reports from both reviewers, who have major comments about the manuscript, although both agree that the topic itself is potentially important. The feedback provided in the reviewer assessments of your manuscript is important and should be taken into account in the revised manuscript. I encourage you to submit a suitably revised version by taking these suggestions and comments and upload the revised files and a marked-up version showing the changes made in your manuscript.

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Annales Geophysicae. I received the reports from both reviewers, both of whom think the manuscript is greatly improved after revision. However, one of the referees has some major comments about the manuscript. The feedback provided in the reviewer assessments of your manuscript is important and should be taken into account in the revised manuscript. I encourage you to submit a suitably revised version by taking these suggestions and comments and upload the revised files and a marked-up version showing the changes made in your manuscript.

Dear authors,

Thanks for uploading the revised files. However, our record indicates that the files uploaded on Oct 16 are the same as the previous version. I suggest you double check the files and upload the rebuttal letter and the revised manuscript in response to the reviewers' latest comments.

Best,
Wen

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Annales Geophysicae. I received the report from a reviewer, who found that the revisions are not incorporated into the revised paper (see more details below). I encourage you to submit a suitably revised version by taking these suggestions and comments and upload the revised files and a marked-up version showing the changes made in your manuscript.

---------------------------------------------
Third Review of “Resolution Dependence of Magnetosheath Waves in Global Hybrid-Vlasov Simulations” by Dubart, Ganse, Osmane, Johlander, Battarbee, Grandin, Pfau-Kempf, Turc and Palmroth

A “revised paper” and responses to my comments was sent in to the Journal earlier. However when I tried to read the responses, I found out that they were responses to an earlier set of comments.

Now the authors have responded to my second set of comments. However, I find that they are not incorporated into the revised paper. Please be thorough and revise the paper properly.

If the authors wish to include comments from Ahmadi et al. (2016), they should also include the Comment by Remya et al. (2017) and Reply by Ahmadi et al. (2017). The latter two are: JGRSP, 122, 745-747, doi:10.1002/2016JA023148, 2017 and JGRSP, 122, 748-752, doi:10.1002/2016JA023452, 2017, respectively.

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Annales Geophysicae. I received the report from the reviewer. However, the referee is still concerned about the inconsistency between the observation and simulation result. If you think you can address this comment, I encourage you to submit a suitably revised version by taking these suggestions and comments and upload the revised files and a marked-up version showing the changes made in your manuscript.

Thank you for submitting your work to Annales Geophysicae. I am pleased to accept your manuscript, "Resolution dependence of magnetosheath waves in global hybrid-Vlasov simulations" for publication in the journal.