Data Paper
Natsuki Saito and Mifuka Ishikawa. Hydrographic Data of the 62nd Japanese Antarctic Research Expedition fromJanuary 2020 to February 2021. Polar Data Journal. 2024, 8, p. 44–54. https://doi.org/10.20575/00000055.
(Received 2/6/2023; Accepted 5/21/2024)

1st submission
Editor Start Date: 2/7/2023
Editor Stop Date: 4/21/2023

Reviewer #1 (2/15/2023–4/21/2023)
Reviewer #2 (3/7/2023–3/9/2023)

Editor comments to the Author: Masaki Kanao
From the review result and opinions by two referees, the editorial board recommends to revise the main text and
Abstract of the paper. In the current version of the ms, the editorial board cannot proceed to the next step then authors
are required to make major revisions and submit again. Practically, authors are necessary to make the following
revisions.
Authors should describe briefly/concisely the contents of the paper in the Abstract, including the series number ofthe hydrographic data observations in JARE.
In the main text, authors are strongly recommended to revise the whole sentences in the following manners.
- describe only the points which are different from previous series of papers published in the Polar Data Journal, e.g.,
Yukawo Ikeuchi Polar Data Journal,7,1-12 (2023-01)- refer/cite to the previous series of papers for the same contents/sentences which have not changed from the previous
series of papers, in order to avoid duplication of the descriptions.In the current version, the ms is almost the samedescription over the whole documents, which is critically resemble to the previous papers.

Reviewer #1: Anonymous
This manuscript reported two hydrographic data: bathymetric data and observed tidal data. The bathymetry obtained
from the SeaBeam observation supplements the bathymetry of unsurveyed area in Lützow-Holmbukta. On the other
hand, the ocean tidal observation at Nishinoura has been continued since 1972 and is very useful for monitoring sea
level rise. Therefore, both data reported in this manuscript are very important. However, there are a few descriptions
that need to be checked and corrected.
As a comment throughout, the author conducted observations as a member of the 62nd Japanese Antarctic Research
Expedition, and this should be mentioned in the Abstract or Backgraound & Summary (before the description of JARE-

61). In addition, you should use the correct place name based on the most recent Gazetteer. For example,
Showa Station -> Syowa Station
Lüzow-Holm Bay -> Lüzow-Holmbukta
Nishi-no-Ura -> Nishinoura
In Figure2, "Nishi-no-ura Tide Station" should be correctly described "Tide observation hut".

Major comments:
I have some questions on Table 2. I understood that K is the so-called local phase lag and G is the Greenwich phaselag. Is this correct? Longitude is used in the relation (conversion equation) between G and K. The difference between
K and G of all tidal constituents are too small, even though the longitude of Syowa Station is about 40 degrees. How
did you derive G from K? At least, the difference between K and G for a semidiurnal tide should be twice the difference
between K and G for a diurnal tide.
Moreover, the Gs for O1, P1, K1, N2, M2, S2 and K2 in Table 2 significantly differ from Gs obtained from otheranalyses and the global ocean tide models. Why is there large disagreement?
Since G is not mentioned in the text, it is better to add this explanation to "4. Data Records".
I also have a question on Data Citations. Although the author did not describe about the XCTD data in the section 4
in the manuscript, is it OK to include the XCTD data to "Data Citations"?

Minor comments:
Abstract:
P1, L13: Remove "(JCG)" in Line 13 and add "JCG" in Line 20 after "The Japan Coast Guard".
3. Methods:
P3, L9 "Basic Observation Laboratory" -> "Fundamental observation building"
4. Data Records:
P3, L19: installed at JARE-59 -> installed by JARE-59
P3, L20: the winter period of JARE61 -> the wintering team of JARE61
P3, L22-30: constituent tide -> tidal constituent
Tidal harmonic analysis using the least squares method was also performed using 369 days of tidal data, and thecalculated tidal harmonic constants are shown in Table 2. The tidal harmonic analysis is a calculation to determine
the amplitude (H) and the lag (K) of each oscillation, assuming that the tidal variation consists of a superposition ofmultiple cosine oscillations. Each oscillation is called a tidal constituent and described by the amplitude (H) and lag(K) computed from the tidal harmonic analysis. In this report, the amplitude (H) and the lag (K) of each tidal
constituent were calculated by minimizing the difference between the estimated and measured values for 60 different
tidal constituents. The method using tidal harmonic constants is effective in the analysis and forecasting of tidal
phenomena.
5. Technical Validation:

P4, L20: Nishi-no-Ura Cove -> Nishinoura
6. Figures:
Figure 2: May you need to add a copyright statement for the GSI map?
Figure 4: The figure caption should be corrected. Because lines 3 and 17 are duplicates. Also, the order of Nishinoura,
Syowa Station is appropriate, and the second and third words in line 17 should be lowercased.
7. Tables:
Table 1: The caption should be revised. For example, Hourly tidal observation during Jan. 1 - Dec. 31, 2020 at Syowa
Station. In addition, it is better to describe whether it is local time or UTC.
Table 2: Are K (deg) and G (deg) "Local phase lag" and "Greenwich phase lag", respectively? If yes, please modify
the caption.
Acknowledgments:
Mr. Tokuaki Obara -> Dr. Noriaki Obara of the JARE61 wintering team

Reviewer #2: Anonymous
This paper deals with the bathymetric data and tidal data obtained by JARE-62 as a monitoring observation of JARE.
I well understand the importance of the continuation of the observations and the publication of the data. However, aprevious study has already been published in PDJ (Yukawo Ikeuchi, Polar Data Journal,7,1-12) and the most of thecurrent MS looks the copies from the previous paper. I think the current MS should be completely rewritten to avoid
claims of suspected plagiarism. I strongly recommend the author to resubmit the paper following the advises of theeditorial board about the submission guidelines.

Authors Response (in red):
Response to the editor;- describe only the points which are different from previous series of papers published in the Polar Data Journal, e.g.,
Yukawo Ikeuchi Polar Data Journal,7,1-12 (2023-01)- refer/cite to the previous series of papers for the same contents/sentences which have not changed from the previous
series of papers, in order to avoid duplication of the descriptions.In the current version, the ms is almost the samedescription over the whole documents, which is critically resemble to the previous papers.
It is noted in "1 Background and Summary" that the survey is continuing from JARE61, and the same information as
in JARE61 has been cited and deleted.

Response to reviewer #1;
As a comment throughout, the author conducted observations as a member of the 62nd Japanese Antarctic Research
Expedition, and this should be mentioned in the Abstract or Backgraound & Summary (before the description of JARE-

61).
Described the information as noted in the Abstract and Backgraound & Summary.
Showa Station -> Syowa Station
Corrected as noted.
Lüzow-Holm Bay -> Lüzow-Holmbukta
Corrected as noted.
Nishi-no-Ura -> Nishinoura
Corrected as noted.
In Figure2, "Nishi-no-ura Tide Station" should be correctly described "Tide observation hut".
Corrected as noted.

Major comments:
I have some questions on Table 2. I understood that K is the so-called local phase lag and G is the Greenwich phaselag. Is this correct? Longitude is used in the relation (conversion equation) between G and K. The difference between
K and G of all tidal constituents are too small, even though the longitude of Syowa Station is about 40 degrees. How
did you derive G from K? At least, the difference between K and G for a semidiurnal tide should be twice the difference
between K and G for a diurnal tide.
Moreover, the Gs for O1, P1, K1, N2, M2, S2 and K2 in Table 2 significantly differ from Gs obtained from otheranalyses and the global ocean tide models. Why is there large disagreement?
Since G is not mentioned in the text, it is better to add this explanation to "4. Data Records".
G (deg) are not"Greenwich phase lag".
G is a harmonic constant that satisfies.
Ki=Gi-ρ*L+σ*S
ρ：Subscripts for the tidal constituent. (1 for a diurnal tide, 2 for a semidiurnal tide,…)σ：Angular velocity of the tidal constituent.
L：Longitude of forecast location (positive (+) for west longitude, negative (-) for east longitude).
S：Longitude of standard time at the time of observation (positive (+) for west longitude, negative (-) for east longitude).
The longitude of Syowa Station is 39 degrees 35 minutes east, and the standard time at Showa
Station is UTC+3, so 45 degrees east, and the difference of 5 degrees 25 minutes is thedifference between K and G in S1, which is a diurnal tide.
Deleted the statement regarding G because the information is misleading to users.
I also have a question on Data Citations. Although the author did not describe about the XCTD data in the section 4
in the manuscript, is it OK to include the XCTD data to "Data Citations"?
Corrected the text as noted. Figure 1 shows the locations of XCTD observations.

P1, L13: Remove "(JCG)" in Line 13 and add "JCG" in Line 20 after "The Japan Coast Guard".

Corrected as noted.
P3, L9 "Basic Observation Laboratory" -> "Fundamental observation building"
Deleted the text of the indicated section.
P3, L19: installed at JARE-59 -> installed by JARE-59
Reflected the wording of your suggestion in the text.
P3, L20: the winter period of JARE61 -> the wintering team of JARE61
Deleted the text of the indicated section.
P3, L22-30: constituent tide -> tidal constituent
Deleted the text of the indicated section.
Tidal harmonic analysis using the least squares method was also performed using 369 days of tidal data, and thecalculated tidal harmonic constants are shown in Table 2. The tidal harmonic analysis is a calculation to determine
the amplitude (H) and the lag (K) of each oscillation, assuming that the tidal variation consists of a superposition ofmultiple cosine oscillations. Each oscillation is called a tidal constituent and described by the amplitude (H) and lag(K) computed from the tidal harmonic analysis. In this report, the amplitude (H) and the lag (K) of each tidal
constituent were calculated by minimizing the difference between the estimated and measured values for 60 different
tidal constituents. The method using tidal harmonic constants is effective in the analysis and forecasting of tidal
phenomena.
The data records in Table 2 are calculated in the same way as JARE 61, so we have corrected some of your comments
and deleted the text otherwise.
P4, L20: Nishi-no-Ura Cove -> Nishinoura
Corrected as noted.
Figure 2: May you need to add a copyright statement for the GSI map?
Described the information as noted in Figure 2.
Figure 4: The figure caption should be corrected. Because lines 3 and 17 are duplicates. Also, the order of Nishinoura,
Syowa Station is appropriate, and the second and third words in line 17 should be lowercased.
Corrected as noted.
Table 1: The caption should be revised. For example,
Hourly tidal observation during Jan. 1 - Dec. 31, 2020 at Syowa Station.
In addition, it is better to describe whether it is local time or UTC.
Corrected as noted.
Table 2: Are K (deg) and G (deg) "Local phase lag" and "Greenwich phase lag", respectively? If yes, please modify
the caption.
G (deg) are not "Greenwich phase lag". Deleted the statement regarding G because the information is misleading tousers.
Mr. Tokuaki Obara -> Dr. Noriaki Obara of the JARE61 wintering teamCorrected as noted.

Response to reviewer #2;
This paper deals with the bathymetric data and tidal data obtained by JARE-62 as a monitoring observation of JARE.
I well understand the importance of the continuation of the observations and the publication of the data. However, aprevious study has already been published in PDJ (Yukawo Ikeuchi, Polar Data Journal,7,1-12) and the most of thecurrent MS looks the copies from the previous paper. I think the current MS should be completely rewritten to avoid
claims of suspected plagiarism. I strongly recommend the author to resubmit the paper following the advises of theeditorial board about the submission guidelines.
It is noted in "1 Background and Summary" that the survey is continuing from JARE61, and the same information as
in JARE61 has been cited and deleted.

2nd submission
Editor Start Date: 5/22/2023
Editor Stop Date: 9/1/2023

Reviewer #2 (5/28/2023–6/8/2023)
Reviewer #3 (8/20/2023–9/1/2023)

Reviewer #2: Anonymous
Overall comments:
The author has revised the MS by removing duplicated parts of previous studies and citing the reference paper(Ikeuchi, 2020) in Chapter 1.
I think the current MS has succeeded in avoiding suspicion of plagiarism. However, the paper became difficult tounderstand without the reference paper. The paper should be self-contained, and to ensure this, a minimum description
should be added that should not be a copy of the reference paper.
The paper does not appear to be well organized. In particular, the titles of some chapters do not match well with theircontents. Some statements should be moved to more appropriate chapters.
Please see the attached pdf (below) for more details on these points and other specific comments.

1. Background & Summary
L21 tidal observations: This statement is somehow inaccurate since tidal observations are made at Showa Station.
Also, it is necessary to explain the background of the tidal observations, because they are not only for charting
purposes.
L22 for nautical charting purposes: Some additional explanation would be appreciated. For example, history of thestudy, future plans, expected applications and effects, etc.
2. Location

L31 Figure 1: Some explanations about Figure 1, e.g., "the survey track was shown in red lines", etc., would beappreciated. Also some description about the relation with the JARE-61 or future surveys.
L32 Figure 2: Some explanations about Figure 2 would be also appreciated.
3. Methods
L4 SeaBeam 3020 Icebreaker, ELAC: It may need references.
L5-6 The draft correction was applied according to the draft value reported by SHIRASE CREW at the time ofdeparture from Syowa Station on January 21, 2021: I could not understand the meaning of this sentence. It may
need more detailed explanation so that readers including me can understand.
L9-10 (QWP-8-203D-K, Meisei Electric Co., Ltd.): It may need references.
4. Data Records
As described in the submission guidelines, this chapter is supposed to describe the data records relevant to this paper,i.e., data files, data structures, data formats, etc. However, this chapter contains few such descriptions. At least a brief
description about the structures/format of the data sets on JODC website would be preferable in this chapter. On theother hand, a large part of current description here seems more appropriate for the "Methods" chapter; I would suggest
the author move them to Chapter 3.
L14 XCTD: Please spell out the abbreviation.
L16 ArcGIS 10.5 (ESRI): The software may need references.
L19-23 Tidal harmonic analysis using the least squares method was also performed using 369 days of tidal data, andthe calculated tidal harmonic constants are shown in Table 2. The tidal harmonic analysis is a calculation todetermine the amplitude (H) and the lag (K) of each oscillation, assuming that the tidal variation consists of asuperposition of multiple cosine oscillations: A more detailed description about the data processing or references
should be necessary to ensure the reproductivity of the results. All these description should be moved into Chapter
3.
5. Technical Validation
L25-28 The bathymetry data were calculated by the CUBE (Combined Uncertainty and Bathymetric Estimator)
processing in Caris HIPS and SIPS Ver.11. The grid sizes of the CUBE bathymetry were set to 100 m, dependingon the beam footprint, a measure of the spatial resolution of the multibeam echo sounder: The sentence looks about
the methods. I would recommend to move it into Chapter 3. CUBE, Caris HIPS, SIPS Ver. 11 may need references.
L28-29 The typical uncertainties of the resulting CUBE bathymetric data are 10.7 ±4.5 m off Lützow-Holmbukta(depth range of approximately 3000–4300 m): An appropriate description in this chapter should describe how
typical uncertainties are estimated and how they are ensured.
L32-34 From the calibration results, it was confirmed that the variation of zero level and sensitivity ratio of thequartz-oscillator water level gauge was within the measurement accuracy: As a technical validation, it is necessary
to explain how these conclusions were reached. For example, the accuracy of the calibration results and theprecision of the measurements need to be quantitatively described and discussed.
L1-3 vertical offset of 500 cm below the top of benchmark No. 1040 was applied to the tidal data in this report. The

offset value has been used as the observation datum level for tidal observations since February 1, 2001 4: This
description seems to be a part of the method chapter.

Reviewer #3: Tadashi Ishikawa
This paper describes the JCG observation data at JARE-62 following JAPRE-61 described in Ikeuchi (2023).
Because the basic content is the same as Ikeuchi (2023), there is no problem with the content and it deserves publication.
One minor comment:
To clarify the relationship with Ikeuchi (2023), it is better to include the previous ship track in Figure 1.

Authors response (in red):
Response to reviewer #2;
The author has revised the MS by removing duplicated parts of previous studies and citing the reference paper(Ikeuchi, 2020) in Chapter 1.
I think the current MS has succeeded in avoiding suspicion of plagiarism. However, the paper became difficult tounderstand without the reference paper. The paper should be self-contained, and to ensure this, a minimum description
should be added that should not be a copy of the reference paper.
Corrected as noted.
The paper does not appear to be well organized. In particular, the titles of some chapters do not match well with theircontents. Some statements should be moved to more appropriate chapters.
Corrected as noted.
1. Background & Summary
L21 tidal observations: This statement is somehow inaccurate since tidal observations are made at Showa Station.
Also, it is necessary to explain the background of the tidal observations, because they are not only for charting
purposes.
Corrected as noted.
L22 for nautical charting purposes: Some additional explanation would be appreciated. For example, history of thestudy, future plans, expected applications and effects, etc.
Corrected as noted.
2. Location
L31 Figure 1: Some explanations about Figure 1, e.g., "the survey track was shown in red lines", etc., would beappreciated. Also some description about the relation with the JARE-61 or future surveys.
Corrected as noted.
L32 Figure 2: Some explanations about Figure 2 would be also appreciated.
Corrected as noted.
3. Methods

L4 SeaBeam 3020 Icebreaker, ELAC: It may need references.
Added the reference.
L5-6 The draft correction was applied according to the draft value reported by SHIRASE CREW at the time ofdeparture from Syowa Station on January 21, 2021: I could not understand the meaning of this sentence. It may
need more detailed explanation so that readers including me can understand.
Corrected some of the text noted.
L9-10 (QWP-8-203D-K, Meisei Electric Co., Ltd.): It may need references.
Corrected as noted.
4. Data Records
As described in the submission guidelines, this chapter is supposed to describe the data records relevant to this paper,i.e., data files, data structures, data formats, etc. However, this chapter contains few such descriptions. At least a brief
description about the structures/format of the data sets on JODC website would be preferable in this chapter. On theother hand, a large part of current description here seems more appropriate for the "Methods" chapter; I would suggest
the author move them to Chapter 3.
Corrected as noted.
L14 XCTD: Please spell out the abbreviation.
eXpendable Conductivity, Temperature and Depth
L16 ArcGIS 10.5 (ESRI): The software may need references.
Add the reference.
L19-23 Tidal harmonic analysis using the least squares method was also performed using 369 days of tidal data, andthe calculated tidal harmonic constants are shown in Table 2. The tidal harmonic analysis is a calculation todetermine the amplitude (H) and the lag (K) of each oscillation, assuming that the tidal variation consists of asuperposition of multiple cosine oscillations: A more detailed description about the data processing or references
should be necessary to ensure the reproductivity of the results. All these description should be moved into Chapter
3.
Corrected as noted.
5. Technical Validation
L25-28 The bathymetry data were calculated by the CUBE (Combined Uncertainty and Bathymetric Estimator)
processing in Caris HIPS and SIPS Ver.11. The grid sizes of the CUBE bathymetry were set to 100 m, dependingon the beam footprint, a measure of the spatial resolution of the multibeam echo sounder: The sentence looks about
the methods. I would recommend to move it into Chapter 3. CUBE, Caris HIPS, SIPS Ver. 11 may need references.
Corrected as noted.
L28-29 The typical uncertainties of the resulting CUBE bathymetric data are 10.7 ±4.5 m off Lützow-Holmbukta(depth range of approximately 3000–4300 m): An appropriate description in this chapter should describe how
typical uncertainties are estimated and how they are ensured.
Corrected as noted.

L32-34 From the calibration results, it was confirmed that the variation of zero level and sensitivity ratio of thequartz-oscillator water level gauge was within the measurement accuracy: As a technical validation, it is necessary
to explain how these conclusions were reached. For example, the accuracy of the calibration results and theprecision of the measurements need to be quantitatively described and discussed.
Corrected as noted.
L1-3 vertical offset of 500 cm below the top of benchmark No. 1040 was applied to the tidal data in this report. The
offset value has been used as the observation datum level for tidal observations since February 1, 2001 4: This
description seems to be a part of the method chapter.
Corrected as noted.

Response to reviewer #3;
To clarify the relationship with Ikeuchi (2023), it is better to include the previous ship track in Figure 1.
Described the information as noted in Figure 1.

3rd submission
Editor Start Date: 12/25/2023
Editor Stop Date: 3/21/2024

Reviewer #1 (1/8/2024–3/19/2024)
Reviewer #2 (12/26/2023–12/27/2023)

Reviewer #1: Anonymous
This manuscript reported two hydrographic data obtained with bathymetric survey and tidal observation. Both data
are very important for not only nautical charting procedure but also various studies. However, there are a few
descriptions that need to be checked and corrected.

Major comments:
Regarding your tidal harmonic analysis described in Chapter 3, you need to describe the epoch (reference of time)of the phase lag and the analysis software you used. (adding references in necessary) This is because your estimatedphase lag differs significantly from the results of other tidal analysis in this area and from the global ocean tide model.

Minor comments:
2. Location
L9: As see Fig.1, it seems to be appropriate that "The JARE-62 surveyed the area adjacent to the south of areasurveyed by the JARE-61."
3. Methods:
L35: “The tidal harmonic analysis is a calculation to determine the amplitude (H) and the lag (K) of each oscillation,”-> “The tidal harmonic analysis is a calculation to determine the amplitude (H) and the phase lag (K) of each
oscillation,”
L1: “The amplitude (H) and the lag(K) of each tide constituent” -> The H and K of each tidal constituent”
L3: How to calculate “the estimated values”? Which did you compare the estimated and measured values in time
domain or in frequency domain?
4. Data Records:
L11: “CSV” means Comma Separated Values, doesn’t it?
5. Technical Validation:
What are “CL” and “FS”?
L25: “In the JARE-62, calibration observations for the calibration were conducted from January 11 and 12, 2021, at
Nishinoura, East Ongul Island.” -> for example “In the JARE-62, measurements for calibrating the tide gauge wereconducted …”
6. Figures:
Figure 1: To me the JARE-61 track looks like a yellow line, not an orange line. And XCTD seems to be indicated bya "symbol" rather than a "point".
Figure 2: Location map of tide gauges at Nishinoura, tidal observation system observations in the Fundamental
observation building, and their connected cables at Syowa Station.
The red part should be modified. For example, “tidal observation system installed in …”.
Acknowledgments:
Dr. Noriaki Obara of the JARE61 -> JARE-61

Reviewer #2: Anonymous
I can acknowledge that the authors have made appropriate corrections to the MS. I believe it is almost ready for
publication. All that remains are a few minor suggestions (mainly editorial issues) that I would like to ask of the authors,which are listed below.

P2, L10, "East Ongul Island.(Figure 2)." : -> "East Ongul Island (Figure 2)."P3, L20, "(95% CL)": What does "CL" stand for ? "Confidence Level" ?
P3, L23, "0.05 % FS": What does "FS" stand for ? "Full Scale" ?
P3, L26, "calibration observations for the calibration": -> "the calibration observations" or "the calibration was"P3, L28, "nearly typical values for sea water": I could know understand the meaning of this. What is "typical values
for sea water" ?

Figure/Table captions: A piriod is necessary for figure/table numbers. For instance, "Figure 1 Ship track ..." in P4,
L3, should be "Figure 1. Ship track...". The same applies to other figures/tables.
P5, L2, "tidal observation system observations in the …" : -> "tide observation hut, tidal observation system in the…" ? For the consistency, "Water level" in Figure 2 should be "Tide gauges".
P10, L7, "express her gratitude": -> "express their gratitude".

Authors response (in red):
Response to reviewer #1;
Regarding your tidal harmonic analysis described in Chapter 3, you need to describe the epoch (reference of time)of the phase lag and the analysis software you used. (adding references in necessary) This is because your estimatedphase lag differs significantly from the results of other tidal analysis in this area and from the global ocean tide model.
Add the epoch of the phase lag and reference.
Minor comments:
2. Location
L9: As see Fig.1, it seems to be appropriate that "The JARE-62 surveyed the area adjacent to the south of area
surveyed by the JARE-61."
Corrected as noted.
3. Methods:
L35: “The tidal harmonic analysis is a calculation to determine the amplitude (H) and the lag (K) of each oscillation,”-> “The tidal harmonic analysis is a calculation to determine the amplitude (H) and the phase lag (K) of each
oscillation,”
Corrected as noted.
L1: “The amplitude (H) and the lag(K) of each tide constituent” -> The H and K of each tidal constituent”
Corrected as noted.
L3: How to calculate “the estimated values”? Which did you compare the estimated and measured values in time
domain or in frequency domain?
The estimated values were calculated by substituting the hourly data for 369 days into the observation equation.
4. Data Records:
L11: “CSV” means Comma Separated Values, doesn’t it?
Yes, it does.
5. Technical Validation:
What are “CL” and “FS”?
CL: confidence interval, FS: full scale
L25: “In the JARE-62, calibration observations for the calibration were conducted from January 11 and 12, 2021, at
Nishinoura, East Ongul Island.” ―> for example “In the JARE-62, measurements for calibrating the tide gauge
were conducted …”

Corrected as noted.
6. Figures:
Figure 1: To me the JARE-61 track looks like a yellow line, not an orange line. And XCTD seems to be indicated bya "symbol" rather than a "point".
Corrected as noted. "orange" → "yellow", "points" → "symbols"
Figure 2: Location map of tide gauges at Nishinoura, tidal observation system observations in the Fundamental
observation building, and their connected cables at Syowa Station.
The red part should be modified. For example, “tidal observation system installed in …”.
Corrected as noted.
Acknowledgments:
Dr. Noriaki Obara of the JARE61 -> JARE-61
Corrected as noted.

Response to reviewer #2;
P2, L10, "East Ongul Island.(Figure 2)." : -> "East Ongul Island (Figure 2)."
Corrected as noted.
P3, L20, "(95% CL)": What does "CL" stand for ? "Confidence Level" ?
"CL"：confidence interval
P3, L23, "0.05 % FS": What does "FS" stand for ? "Full Scale" ?
"FS"：full scale
P3, L26, "calibration observations for the calibration": -> "the calibration observations" or "the calibration was""measurements for calibrating the tide gauge"
P3, L28, "nearly typical values for sea water": I could know understand the meaning of this. What is "typical values
for sea water" ?
The salinity obtained from the XCTD observation around Syowa Station was approximately 34(PSU) at depth 5m.This
result is similar to previous observations, and the reduction ratio 0.97(the scale factor of the tide gauge, JARE-62)
Figure/Table captions: A piriod is necessary for figure/table numbers. For instance, "Figure 1 Ship track ..." in P4, L3,should be "Figure 1. Ship track...". The same applies to other figures/tables.
Corrected as noted.
P5, L2, "tidal observation system observations in the …" : -> "tide observation hut, tidal observation system in the…" ? For the consistency, "Water level" in Figure 2 should be "Tide gauges".
Corrected as noted.
P10, L7, "express her gratitude": -> "express their gratitude".
Corrected as noted.

4th submission
Editor Start Date: 4/3/2024
Editor Stop Date: 5/9/2024

Reviewer #1 (4/9/2024–5/9/2024)
Reviewer #2 (4/4/2024–4/5/2024)

Reviewer #1: Anonymous
This manuscript reported two hydrographic data obtained with bathymetric survey and tidal observation. Both data
are very important for not only nautical charting procedure but also various studies. This manuscript is considered tobe acceptable after minor revision.

Minor comments:
1. Regarding your tidal harmonic analysis described in Chapter 3, you should remove the following statement:
The epoch of the K is Syowa Station (Lat 69-00-28S, Lon 39-24-13E) in this report.
The above statement is inappropriate because “epoch" generally means a time reference. However, as a reference
has been added for the tidal analysis tool, this statement is considered unnecessary.
2. You should explain the following abbreviations in the text of manuscript:
CL: confidence interval
FS: full scale

Reviewer #2: Anonymous
The current MS would be fine for publication. I have only a few comments as follows.
1. the abbreviations CL (should be CI: Confidential Interval) and FS should be spelled out on first appearance.
2. Thanks to the authors' response, I understand the sentence of "… and nearly typical values for sea water". For clarity,
it would be desirable to add a few words in the text, such as, "… and nearly typical for sea water with a practicalsalinity unit of 34".
Revisions are at the authors' discretion.

Authors response (in red):
Response to reviewer #1;
1. Regarding your tidal harmonic analysis described in Chapter 3, you should remove the following statement:
The epoch of the K is Syowa Station (Lat 69-00-28S, Lon 39-24-13E) in this report.
The above statement is inappropriate because “epoch" generally means a time reference. However, as a reference hasbeen added for the tidal analysis tool, this statement is considered unnecessary.
Corrected as noted.
2. You should explain the following abbreviations in the text of manuscript:
CL: confidence interval
FS: full scale
Corrected as noted.

Response to reviewer #2;
1. the abbreviations CL (should be CI: Confidential Interval) and FS should be spelled out on first appearance.
Corrected as noted.
2. Thanks to the authors' response, I understand the sentence of "… and nearly typical values for sea water". For clarity,
it would be desirable to add a few words in the text, such as, "… and nearly typical for sea water with a practicalsalinity unit of 34".
Corrected as noted.

Editor in Chief comments to the Author: Akira Kadokura
In your final version, please correct the abbreviation of "Confidential Interval" to "CI" from "CL" at the Lines 21
and 23 in the revised manuscript.
Corrected according to the above comment.