Index: /trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.calibration/response.txt
===================================================================
--- /trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.calibration/response.txt	(revision 41241)
+++ /trunk/doc/release.2015/ps1.calibration/response.txt	(revision 41241)
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+
+** We are resubmitting our article "Pan-STARRS Photometric and
+   Astrometric Calibration" after addressing suggestions raised by the
+   referee.  We thank the referee for detailed comments and
+   suggestions.  Below are our responses to the referee's suggestions.
+   In the response below, our responses are preceeded by "**".
+   Modified portions of the article text are highlighted with boldface
+   type. 
+
+Reviewer's Comments:
+
+The paper "Pan-STARRS Photometric and Astrometric Calibration" by
+Magnier et al. describes the calibration of a major modern sky survey.
+The paper is well written and provides sufficient technical detail to not
+only for the reader to understand what was done, but also to inform
+future surveys. Given this legacy aspect, my only major comment is
+that it would be prudent to discuss the performance of Pan-STARRS
+calibration in comparison to other major optical surveys, such as SDSS,
+DES and HSC surveys. Such a discussion would illuminate all your
+advances and provide direction for future work. My other, much more
+minor comments are listed below.
+
+** We agree with this suggestion and have substantially extended the
+   Conclusion section to put this article in the context of other
+   recent and future surveys.
+
+- Abstract: it would be good to provide quantitative summary of photometric
+and astrometric performance (such as values listed in fig. 4 caption)
+
+** we added this to the abstract.
+
+- after eqs. 5 and 6: I was puzzled why there was no source color
+dependence in these equations; you may want to clarify that early
+
+** clarification added to the end of section 3.3
+
+- page 5: S in LSD, S stands for "Survey", not "Scale"
+
+** fixed
+
+- page 8, left column, 1st paragraph: you may want to state that your
+fundamental assumption is that the chemical and thermodynamical
+state of the atmosphere is constant throughout a night
+
+** clarification added
+
+- page 8, left column, 3rd paragraph: what does word "reliability" mean
+in this context? It's certainly not standard statistical usage.
+
+** This paragraph was reworded to describe the reliablity of the
+   Schlafly et al results more clearly.
+
+- page 8, left column, last paragraph: this result (20-35 mmag) is
+discrepant by a factor of ~3 compared to Schlafly et al. results;
+please comment and clarify
+
+** The Schlafly et al results do not constrain the absolute zero
+   points, relying on a tie via SDSS.  The Scolnic et al analysis
+   determines the absolute zero points directly.   This has been
+   explained at the end of Section 5.1.
+   
+
+- page 9, right column, 2nd paragraph: this clipping procedure sounds
+like an ad hoc hocus pocus; can you provide at least some statistical
+justification (e.g. what is the distribution model you had in your mind)?
+perhaps even more ad hoc procedure is assigning weights of 10x their
+default; why 10 and not 5, or 50, or?
+
+** Text has been added to 5.3 (p. 10) to explain the outlier
+   rejection process and rationale.
+
+- similarly to the above comments; what statistical outlier model are eqs.
+17 and 18 supposed to model/address?
+
+** Clarification has been added to the text in section 5.4.2 to
+   explain the outliers.
+
+- comment about proper motions after introducing eqs. 21-24 is not
+entirely correct because a lot of your observations are far from the
+galactic plane and thus are sensitive to the asymmetric drift effects
+for disk stars
+
+** This is a good point.  We have updated the text in section 6.2 to
+   address this concern.
+
+- last paragraph in section 6.2: so how much improvement did you get
+from eqs. 21-24?
+
+** The improvement is noted now in section 6.2.
+