Scope

[prisae]

I think this paper can get easily too long, as we are potentially including five different codes. So I would personally limit it to

• code description; which should include;
  • Equation system it solves;
  • the used discretization possibilities;
  • domains (frequency, time);
  • details (anisotropy; el. perm. and mag. perm.);
  • other things (inversion; other methods);
  • speed and memory estimation;
  • plans for next features.
• forward modelling with numerical results (see #4)
• discussion about the landscape, where which model excels and why, etc.

So in this scenario, the inversion capabilities fall under Code Description. Input by mail from others:

Lindsey:

One thing that would be nice to speak about (though examples might be out of scope) would be the inversion side of things. This has enough scope that it could be a follow-up paper later on, but giving a few thoughts on how to move forward on inverting data might be a worthwhile addition. This might fit under a more generic heading along the lines of "Moving forward" or similar that would give a bit of space to also talk about future plans for each project.

Raphael:

I agree to Lindsey that discussing and working on 3D CSEM inversion is the next step. Nevertheless, I tend to Dieter’s primary idea to focus on modeling only for now. Maybe we could add a few comments on the potential of our modeling codes for inversion.

[ocastilloreyes]

I agree with the proposed scope.

[Moouuzi]

Regarding Kerry's suggestion: Providing a set of reference/test models for 3D CSEM is a great idea, but I think it would exeed the scope of what we planned so far (presenting the open source landscape of 3D CSEM codes rather than a new set of validation models for 3D CSEM) or we probably need to change the focus. As an alternative suggestion, this idea sounds for me like a great follow up: Presenting something like 5 CSEM models from airborne to marine and simplistic to industry models, calculated with our codes which were already intrduced in this paper. In addtion, further authors could be invitied to contribute for creating new reference models.

[prisae]

Good point. I think we could combine it all in this paper. Not everything has to go into the article itself, but we can set up a repo with these models, and in the article refer to the repo where more validation models can be found than the ones presented in the paper itself.