Dear Dr Eckhardt,

The reviewer is satisfied with the changes you have made to your manuscript, so this is just about ready to be accepted. However you have not yet responded to the concerns I raised about code and data availability in my response to your original submission.

The code is currently made available via a project git repository. Git is a fine revision control system, however as an archival location for the precise version of the code used in a paper, it is problematic. This is because the project might switch revision control technology, or website in the future, and at that point it would not be possible to find the code from the paper. For this reason, we strongly prefer the precise release of the code used in the paper to be archived in a third party persistent archive referenced by a DOI. Many authors use Zenodo.org, which is run by CERN, for this purpose. Other repositories are available. You can either upload a tarball to Zenodo directly, or push a copy of your git repository to GitHub and use the Zenodo-GitHub interoperability to generate an archived version automatically. It is, of course, completely acceptable to refer to your git repository in addition to a persistent archive, but a git repository by itself is insufficiently safe.

Similarly, we have a strong preference for simulation results to be archived on Zenodo or a subject-specific archive rather than be made available "on request". Archiving properly makes the provenance trail of the results in the paper much safer.

Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this.

Regards,

David

Dear Dr Eckhardt,

Thank you pushing your source code to Zenodo. I accept that pushing all the data to Zenodo can be a challenge and the source code is the main point of the paper, so I'm happy for this to be published now.

Regards,

David