Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Geoscience Communication, and for engaging so thoroughly in the peer-review process. The activity that you report on and the context that you provide is very useful to the wider geoscience community, and would be very well suited for publication in Geoscience Communication.

I am recommended that this manuscript requires major revisions before publication, because whilst I think most of the issues can be addressed in a relatively straightforward manner, I am in strong agreement with Reviewer 2 that you need to carefully reconsider your evaluation strategy. Whilst it is obviously not possible to get pre-workshop data now that the activity has taken place, it should still be possible to follow up with the participants to see if there has been any long-term learning as a result of your intervention. If this is not possible, then you will have to better explain limitations of your study and use this to reframe the paper. For example, are you really raising science capital, and if so then how?

Furthermore, in Section 5 you state that the activity was ‘qualitatively evaluated’, but I see no real evidence of this. Figure 5 shows that the participants enjoyed the session, but this is a basic quantitative evaluation. Do you have any comments or opinions from the participants, or could you get these now? If so then these would form the basis of a very useful qualitative evaluation.

Finally, please conduct a very thorough proofread of the manuscript, as there are several typographical and grammatical errors that need correcting, some of which have been picked up by the reviewers.

Thank you again for submitting to Geoscience Communication, and I look forward to seeing the next version of your manuscript.

Many Thanks,

Sam

Thank you for making the revisions to the manuscript that were requested of you in the previous stage of revisions. The manuscript has now gone out for review again, and both the reviewers any myself as editor are happy that you have addressed most of our concerns. However, before we are able to publish this manuscript in Geoscience Communication, I ask that you make two further amendments:

1. Please revisit the quality of your figures, and ensure that they are in high resolution with well-focussed text that is easy to read.
2. Please re-word Section 5, as you have not 'qualitatively evaluated' the activity, and indeed you have pointed out that the lack of such an evaluation is a shortcoming of this work. This is still a valuable piece of research, and is an excellent example of a pilot programme that will lead to further work and subsequent evaluation, but at the moment it would be stretching the point to say that such an evaluation has been conducted.

Once these changes have been made, then I will be very happy to publish this work in GC. Thank you again for your time and patience in engaging with the peer-review process, and for considering our journal for publication.

Many Thanks,

Sam Illingworth

Thank you for engaging so thoroughly with the peer review process. We are delighted to be able to now accept this manuscript for publication in Geoscience Communication.

Many Thanks,

Sam