General comments

Neven et al. publish what appears to be a good quality dataset that has a good potential for being adopted by the community.  The geological context, acquisition parameters and procedure are well described and appropriate references are given for the reader to obtained additional information if needed.  The authors are distributing the processed data as well as 1D inversion results.  It is thus possible for researchers to immediately use the results, but also to extend the level of information attainable with the data by performing sophisticated inversion processes.  The file formats are simple and also clearly defined, which should facilitate adoption of the dataset.

Specific comments

Are the data and methods presented new?

            Yes for the data.  The methods used have been published before.

Is there any potential of the data being useful in the future?

            Yes

Are methods and materials described in sufficient detail?

            Overall, yes, but details about the method used to detect coupled structures (line 102) should be added.

Are any references/citations to other data sets or articles missing or inappropriate?

            No, except @ line 69: ref to Christiansen is incomplete

Is the data set accessible via the given identifier?

            Yes

Is the data set complete?

            Yes

Are error estimates and sources of errors given (and discussed in the article)?

            Yes, to some extent

Are the accuracy, calibration, processing, etc. state of the art?

            Yes

Are common standards used for comparison?

            N/A

Are there any inconsistencies within these, implausible assertions or data, or noticeable problems which would suggest the data are erroneous (or worse)?

            No

As the data set usable in its current format and size?

            Yes

Are the formal metadata appropriate?

            Yes

Is the length of the article appropriate?

            Overall, yes.  In the conclusion, the authors mention that various so far unexplained geological structures are revealed by the new data, and I think that the paper would greatly benefit if 1-2 examples could be given.

Is the overall structure of the article well-structured and clear?

            Yes

Is the language consistent and precise?

            Yes

Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used?

            Overall, yes, but section 3 (Data Validation) starts directly with an equation, and a sentence should be added first to introduce the topic.

Are figures and tables correct and of high quality?

            The figures are of good quality.  I think however that additional subfigures are needed.  For instance, Figure 4 should also include the cross section with sharpness constraint inversion.  Figure 5 should also show the results of a 1D inversion with sharpness constraint applied.  A noisy sounding should also be shown, for the reader to appreciate the overall quality of the data.

Other comments

            Around line 45, the authors should add that the dataset could also be used in future studies where other geophysical methods are used, to complement the analysis by performing joint inversion.

General comments :

The dataset presented here by Neven et al. appear to be complete and of good quality. The dataset comprising both the processed data as well the 1D inversion results (two different inversions) seems really interesting. It could very well be used, as suggested by the authors, as a benchmark to test inversion algorithm in particular as plenty of additional data appears to be available on this site.

The file format and its description are clear and easy to read.

Overall, the article presented here is of very good quality.

Specific comments :

It would be interessting to see in figure 5 and/or 6, some sort of comparison of the two inversion results with sharp and smooth models as well between the conservative  and standard DOI.

I understand the with TEM data, there is obviously a DOI below which the resolution is very poor (as discussed here) but the is also close to the surface a depth above which the resolution is also very poor. Did you look at that in this dataset ?

Do you consider the turn-off time to be constant ? Could it not change, even very little, when the properties of the very near surface change ?

Technical corrections :

Here are a few typing errors that should be corrected :

L19 “ conduct to “ should be "lead to"

L66 “high efficient data collection” should be changed to either highly efficient or high efficiency data collection

L69 incomplete citation

L69-70 For consistency, choose “tTEM system” or “tTEM-system” and use it everywhere

L130-132 Again with “DOI-standard” or “DOI standard”

L131 weakly instead of weekly

Table 1 Precise in the first line “Tx No of turn” to prevent any uncertainty.