Peer review of: Electron Bernstein waves driven by electron crescents near the electron diffusion region (2020)

RR3

Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
I re-read all the comments and rebuttals and then re-read the paper carefully from beginning to end, including figure captions.
I find the paper much improved, and I think the concerns of referee 3 have been addressed.
I have some remaining comments on presentation, which I think the authors should find straightforward to address:
lines 84-85: many readers will not be familiar with these anisotropy measures, and while they can go to the reference for detailed descriptions, it would seem fair to give them a rough idea, in a sentence, what these parameters are and, especially, whether the observed values (up to 0.05) are high or low and relative to what (i.e., provide some context for the reader for these numbers)
Here and at line 96---from the time series of these parameters one might conclude that the agyrotropicities are sporadic. The parameters bounce up and down. Is this the correct interpretation? Please clarify either way; if it is sporadic, say so, and if not, say why it is not, despite the variations in these parameters. (Maybe this is partly why referee 3 focussed in on the possibility of aliassing in the distributions?)
line 93, the reference seems inadequately described for me to track down. Also, in case it is an entire book (I recall an entire ISSI or ESA volume on this topic), it would be too broad to be useful. Can the authors provide a better reference? I assume there is nothing unduly difficult or sophisticated about this analysis; otherwise a bit more information in the paper would be appropriate.
line 114: state whether this is the combined E-field of all the wave modes, or filtered to analyze a single mode.
line 124, on outer magnetosphere EBW's, only one MMS paper is cited, but I thought there was a wealth of pre-MMS papers on EBWs in the outer magnetosphere. I'm thinking of numerous papers detailing "n+1/2 waves" and their possible causes. I think EBW was among the causes speculated for
these waves, going back to early days. Some contact with that literature here might be appropriate, rather than just citing one MMS paper.
lines 140-144, I suggest a slight rewording something like, "If one assumes the direction of phase velocity is..., the the frequency of peak power...corresponds to a wavelength of 1.4 km, which is comparable to..."
line 149: it's unclear what "that" refers to (that="the measured distribution"?)
lines 170-172: it's great that the authors have included these ideas, but the presentation is somewhat confusing saying one idea is probably the case but then the other completely different idea could be responsible. It might be clearer to say "Two possibilities to explain this are...idea 1 and idea 2." If one of the ideas is much more likely, keep something more like the current wording but indicate why.
lines 203-204: I think it would be more precise to say something like: MMS observed distributions just before the wave event which are presumed to be close to the unstable ones, and during the event which are presumed to be the diffused ones. In other words, say what the actual measurement was, as well as the interpretation.
line 212: Provide more details here. Does this number come from Figure 6 of the reference, assuming a wave power of a few times 10^-5 V^2/m^2?
which is related to one final clarification needed:
Figure 4f: There's a problem with the label of Figure 4f, in that the reader cannot tell whether the scale is linear or log, and either way, what is the range of the scale on the vertical axis. Please give another value besides 10^0 so the readers know how to read values off of the plot.