Climate Shocks and Social Networks: Understanding Adaptation among Rural Indian Households
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The article brings a very relevant theme regarding the organization of society in India in relation to the problems caused by the climate, such as periods of excess/reduction of rainfall and increase/decrease in temperatures.
Here are some points worth mentioning to improve the presentation of the article:
1) The Introduction is very extensive, and sometimes advances the methodology and results of the article in a few paragraphs. I suggest to authors to organize the Introduction into fewer paragraphs with only an introduction to the research problem, a justification of the importance of the study and the main research hypothesis.
2) The data used comes from the grid analysis made available by the University of Delaware, from 1900 to 2014. Did the authors notice that this data was updated until 2017? This is not a problem in itself, but the authors, in some results, report that they are from 1900 to 2015, when in fact they used data from 1900 to 2014 (example: read the caption in Figure 3).
3) The motivation for using a 31-year moving average is unclear. Don't the authors think that the ideal would be, for example, to use the SPI on the scales 12 (annual), 24 (biannual) or 48 (4 years), or even higher?
4) In the first paragraph of topic 2.1, cite works that used this data for other applications, such as: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/2073-4441/13/12/1613
5) Why did you take 1981-2010 as a climatological reference? With such a long data series, why not use, for example, an average from 1961 to 2014? Figure 3 shows that the period 1981-2010 has a predominance of years of negative precipitation deviation, and see that 1961 to 2014 has two periods, wet and dry, equivalent and can be a better reference for your deviations and analysis.
6) Why the analyzes in sub-periods such as 2000 to 2003 and 2007 to 2010? It was not clear in the text.
7) Figure 6 needs to be improved, isn't there a caption for it?
8) What is the statistical test used to obtain p-values like those shown in Table 4?
9) Why not apply a consistent trend test to this study, such as the Mann-Kendall analysis, as well as a test to detect pattern changes, such as the Pettit test?
Finally, the full length of the article, with excess text, is not attractive to the reader, so I recommend a great rereading by the authors and consequent removal of unnecessary excess texts.
OBSERVATION: The article still does not meet the MDPI standards, it is evident that the template provided by climate was not used, the references as they appear in the text are totally out of the journal's standards, and the way in which some figures are presented is also (see that two figures are presented as Figure 1, for example).
Author Response
Please see the attached
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The author has incorporated my suggestions and provided satisfactory reply to my comments. Therefore, I recommend it for publication in its current form.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Thanking you for your comments and feedback
It certainly enhanced the quality of the submission
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
This research findings are very interesting.
The paper is well-written, but please consider another spellcheck by the Authors.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Thanking you for taking your time to review my paper and for your comments and feedback
It certainly enhanced the quality of the submission
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
I thank the authors for the completeness of their answers to my suggestions and applaud their effort to improve the manuscript. My main doubts and main criticisms were adequately answered in my opinion, so I suggest the acceptance of the manuscript.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work given here is impressive and fits the Climate's scope. However, the manuscript in its current form inherited serious flaws in its methodology and style of structuring, therefore, I recommend for major revision. My comments are given below:
1. The term "climate shock" appears peculiar in the context of a study of climate change. I've learned through reading about his work that he attempted to measure the effect of climate change on various social groupings and their adaptability. Therefore, I advise replacing the term "climate shock" with "climate change" or any other suitable term that is used in climate research.
2. Author has mentioned about negative climate change. He needs to define the context and its meaning. This is very confusing as some regions of the country may be benefitted by the rise in temperature at the same time, other part may have serious implications.
3. Methodology Section is two large and vague. It need to be shortened and re-written.
4. Avoid repetition of sentences and correct internal citation (check section 3.1).
Reviewer 2 Report
At this point, the manuscript must be rejected, as it does not meet any of the MDPI formatting criteria.
It is clearly an original document in its entirety, with 50 pages, which makes a thorough review completely unfeasible.
Despite its length, I was able to verify that the document has very interesting results and that, if it is summarized and formatted as every article sent to MDPI should be, it may be successful and be approved in the future, so I encourage the authors to carry out this work as soon as possible. standard formatting procedure for the standards of an article, taking care to summarize in it the essential information and the most important results.
Authors need to consult the following link, and use the template provided by climate in the article submission part:
https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/authors#Submission%20&%20Instructions
