Reviewer 3 has raised significant concerns regarding what aspects of this paper provide new insights into our understanding of the climatology of equatorial plasma bubbles. However, in your response you have identified areas where your work expands our understanding of this phenomenon and after inclusion of these descriptions in your paper it might be suitable for publication. I suggest you revise your paper to incorporate your response to these criticisms and the suggestions provided by the other referees. Upon receiving your revised paper, I will send it out for further review.

The revised paper is a significant improvement over the initial version. The reviewers, however have noted the need for further refinement of the scientific aspects of the paper. These comments need to be addressed before this paper is acceptable for publication.

In addition, the reviewers note the need for considerable revision in the grammar and structure of the paper. If possible the authors should find a native English speaker to help with these revisions.

The point raised by Reviewer 3 that the abstract should be revised to better represent the new science in the paper should also be addressed.

Because of these points, I am recommending that the paper be further revised and then reviewed.

The reviewers recommend publication of your paper and I agree with their judgment. There are still some issues with the grammar and English and presentation of the data in the figures so I am recommending publication subject to minor revision. Referee 1 makes a number of suggestions for improvements to your the grammar/English and also a more substantial revision to Figure 4 etc. and the associated discussion (i.e. provide ratios with respect to night-time occurrences). I also suggest reviewing the paper to catch any additional issues with the grammar/English that the reviewers have not identified.

Your paper is now scientifically appropriate for publication in Annales Geophysicae. Thank you for all the work you put into revising the paper. However, as the last reviewer mentioned, there are still a number of places where the English and use of words is poor. I note that you did make the corrections suggested for the abstract. However, you did not go through the rest of the paper to ensure there weren't similar issues elsewhere. The paper still needs to be revised to correct the remaining issues.
For example, in the first paragraph in the introduction, in the sentence "These EPBs generally exist in clusters (Singh et al., 1997) and often deter the radio waves (e.g., GPS signals) penetrating through it, causing serious attrition on its applications." is poorly worded. The word "deter" is incorrect. "diminish" would be better to use as it implies that the amplitude is reduced whereas "deter" implies a a complete deviation. "attrition on its applications" is ambiguous as it isn't clear what "its" refers to, "their" would be better if you are referring to radio waves. In addition, "attrition" implies gradual decrease in capabilities which is not the situation here. "reduction" might be a better word to use.
The use of "Besides" in the last sentence in this paragraph incorrectly implies a contrast to the manner they are observed in ionosondes. "Besides, they appear as plume-like structures in radar observations (Kudeki and Bhattacharyya, 1999) and emission depletions in airglow images (Sahai et al., 2000)." "Furthermore" would be a better word to use.

There are additional instances of issues such as this in the rest of the paper. Please review your paper before final submission to catch as many of these as possible. Copy editing will help but might not catch wording issues such as those noted above.