Firstly, thank you to the reviewers who have provided some very constructive and useful feedback. And thank you to the authors for responding in a respectful way. Your responses reassure me that the paper will be updated in a way that responds to the reviewers questions and suggestions.

I have a few points which I would also like to add. Some of the following are centred around the reviewers points. Other things are based on my own reading of the article. Please consider the following:

It would be great if you could add a short description of the “science capital” approach that you mention as the framework behind the exhibit.

I would appreciate a brief explanation of the ranking of the words in section 4.1. What does this ranking mean? Does it mean that the more a word is used the higher it’s rank (i.e closer to 1)? If so please, put this in.

At a more general level, I would like you to describe what you mean by “noisy”. As I am sure you agree, “noisy” can mean different things. If I was standing on top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere, I would likely describe it as “silent”. However, I am sure there are sound waves all around me that can be sonified to make that mountain top much more “noisy” than I first imagined. Is this the same with space? Is it only “noisy” if we sonifiy the waves? If so, I think it could be useful to explain this. Space isn’t “noisy” in relation to what we think here on Earth, but it’s “noisy” in so far as there are sound waves that we can sonify and then hear. I hope you see my point here.

In your response to reviewer 2, you add a description of what a “graffiti wall” is in relation to your project. This is very useful. However, it brings up a limitation with your project which I would like you to comment on in the paper. You say that graffiti walls are large areas where “participants are free to write and draw responses…”. In your paper you only evaluate the words people use and not their drawings. I think it is important that you note whether there were drawings on the post-it notes and briefly say that these are not evaluated here (and maybe that this sort of analysis needs to use different methods for evaluation).

With regard to Reviewer Engelschiøn’s comment on “Measuring “change” is vague”. Your response is good, but I believe there is room in the discussion part of this paper for you to expand a little on whether you see the change as positive or negative. Indeed you say that the approach took “a more exploratory and data-driven view”. However, you are experts in space science. You can surely say something about whether you feel the change you noted was good or bad. In my mind, the change seems very positive, but it would be nice to hear what you think. It is great that you follow up on this issue up with the same reviewer on page C5. I look forward to reading your additions on this.

Finally, and importantly. It would be nice to see a comment on any ethical considerations. You evaluated input from human subjects, where you should consider ethics. It is quite possible that the ethical guidelines at your university do not apply to your specific methodology. However, it would be very useful to mention that you considered this and why. You have already done a fantastic job implementing and describing the evaluation of your communication activity. To include the ethical guidelines will make your paper a very nice example of what geoscientists should be aiming for when planning, conducting and writing up their communication activities.

All-in-all, this is a wonderful paper and valuable addition to the Geoscience Communication library.

Dear Dr- Archer and co-authors,

Thank you for taking the time to respond politely and constructively to the reviewers and to update you paper. I am very happy with the overall result. I will submit the paper to be published after a couple of small revisions.

1. Please be consistent with the tense you use when describing the activity at the science exhibit on page 4. At present there is a mix of present and past tense. I would recommend that all the 4 points are placed in the past/past perfect tense, since everything you describe happened in the past.

2. On line 108, please provide the full name for the BERA acronym.

Once these changes are completed, the paper will proceed to the publishing phase. Thanks again for constructive review process.


All the best,
Mathew

Thank you for making the final edits. I recommend this paper for publication.