Dear authors, many thanks for responding to the referee comments in the public discussion. Both referees point to a lack of clarity in your description of the methodology, which you acknowledge and attribute in part to cuts you made in the methods section with a view to achieving an acceptable similarity score. While I appreciate the issue, it is of course important that aspects of the methodology relevant to interpreting the findings are described in a comprehensive manner, and for the paper to stand on its own as a coherent narrative. I trust you can revise your methods section accordingly.
The similarity report for the current version of the manuscript still indicates 21% similarity which is too high. Much of the remaining similarity now concerns the introductory section. Could you please make an additional effort to reduce overlap to no more than about 10%.
Following such revisions, and in accordance with your responses to the referee comments, I would welcome a new version of the manuscript, to be considered for publication after another round of review.

Dear authors, thank you for your revised manuscript and reviewer responses, which have been reviewed by one of the original referees, who finds that the paper is now acceptable for publication, but notes that the manuscript still requires careful editing to address outstanding technical issues.
I may add to this that you do not seem to have taken on board my previously communicated request to reformulate parts of your text to reduce similarity with other sources.
Please review the attached, annotated version of your manuscript where I have highlighted a range of technical and minor language issues, and also those parts of your text where iAuthenticate picked up significant overlap with other sources. In general, your paper requires a final, thorough proof read. I would welcome a revised version of the manuscript in which you have taken account of and corrected these and any other outstanding shortcomings.