Dear Martin,

Apologies for the delay in following up on the referee reports and your subsequent comments, but I am keen to wrap this paper up given that both reviews are positive and proposed revisions are minor.

Having reading the ms and your considered responses to the both reviewers, I'd appreciate it if you could specifically address the following points in making minor revisions to your manuscript:

(1) more prominently highlight the potential issue that PRiSE students may not be representative of their entire schools and accordingly alter the title of the manuscript as you have proposed;
(2) add a very brief comment to clarify the nature of the thematic analysis.
(3) acknowledge the criticism that citizen-science projects may often not be sufficiently audience-centric by more explicitly directing the reader to Archer et al., 2020.

I am happy for you to amend the revised manuscript to acknowledge and clarify other points raised by Prof Reiss, namely relating to the conjecture around the schools engaging with IRIS and HiSPARC and to the issue of retention. With regard other points raised, I personally did not recognise the tone of the paper as self-contratulatory and the ethical clarification is now on record.

I trust that these changes will be relatively easy to undertake - it seems like you have already revised the ms with them in mind. So on that basis I look forward to receiving a copy of the final submission.

Many thanks,

Iain Stewart

Dear Martin,

Thank you for your detailed and carefully considered responses to the reviewers' comments and for the consequent amendments to the manuscript. In my view, these revisions address the minor concerns raised and have tightened the argument and bolstered the substance and impact of the paper, so thank you for that. Look forward to seeing it in print.

Thank you for this excellent paper, which will be of great benefit to the journal and the wider field.

Many Thanks,

Sam