Reviewers’ comments

“The initial paragraphs gives a nice outline and background to an on-going project, and the motivation for the work is clearly framed with references to earlier work. Both the method and the data sources are clearly described and relevant given the topic. As the work is on-going, the results are presented as preliminary, but even so, they seem promising and the concluding plans for future research are both relevant and interesting.”

“Here are some comments, mostly of a minor, wording nature! On the whole, it is very clear, …”

“OVERALL EVALUATION: 3 (strong accept). Is the content original and new?: 5 (excellent). Does the paper build on new data?: 5 (excellent). Are critical concepts and theoretical background described adequately?: 4 (good). Is the bibliography relevant and up-to-date?: 4 (good). Is the structure and language of presentation appropriate?: 5 (excellent)”

“Very nice and thorough description. This kind of paper should get cited a lot, …”

“Presentation (Structure/Length/English): 6, Relevance (Paper fits one or more of the topic areas): 6, Technical quality (Theoretical soundness/methodology): 6. [Scale: 1=Lowest value; 6=Highest value]”