sdtaylor
commented
6 years ago The first one for reviewer 2 was done in #222, it just needs an answer in the reply.
We also need to address the 2nd part of this one. Which we talked about putting some of the Blois citations in and making the wording about biodiversity forecasting more general.
57-58: this is not the definition of hindcasting. This is the definition of testing. Also, the authors exclude the many deeper-time hindcasting studies that have been performed on these types of models
davharris
ethanwhite
Assuming we merge https://github.com/weecology/bbs-forecasting/pull/223 (or something similar), I think this is a complete list of what's left. I'll try to get them all done (or at least answered) by the end of the day.
Ward
[x] revisit #206?, deal with in #236
[x] Line 163-164: again, I think equations could really help here to describe the baseline models.
[x] Line 266: awesome to include a short vignette with example data from this project that is more easily accessible to readers without having to install Jupyter/R packages/etc, #229
[x] Line 249: Can you elaborate on what you did with the deviance? #235
[x] Line 329 – maybe reword, you use forecast 3x in this sentence, #230
Reviewer 2
[x] 25-29: rather than relay the type of information that the paper will provide, the authors should summarize their results and findings
[x] 57-58: Also, the authors exclude the many deeper-time hindcasting studies that have been performed on these types of models
[x] 466: only other mention of future forecasts… not sure why this is included in this paper.