Please find all my comments in the *pdf

This data description paper by Lenneke Jong and co-authors presents composite records of oxygen isotopic composition, chemistry and accumulation rate from the Law Dome site in East Antarctica. Both raw data (against depth) and mean annual values are provided except for the isotopic record, where only level2 data are presented. While many citations are in the text about the use of these data, the authors should improve a bit on why these data are useful and to which communities apart from ice core and paleoclimate ones, for which it is clear.

 The paper accompanying the data is well written, but I would suggest improving the structure. Sometimes I found some difficulties in understanding the differences between Main text, Appendices, Supplementary material with some figures inside the text and others at the end. It confuses …

Moreover, when trying to access the data, clicking on the link at the end of the abstract and also in the Data Availability Section, a prompt asked me for an email address before continuing. On the other end, when I entered the section “View the data set contents” I was able to download the data. Please fix this.

Overall, some changes are needed before being published.

More detailed comments (apart from some typos….).

Lines 56-57: “The DSS record currently spans -11 to 2017 CE…” If I look in the online description, a -9 is reported. Please, fix.

Line 75: the length of the core DSS main and the drilling period are different in the text and in the Table 1.

Lines 89-90: to be honest it is not clear to me if the level 1 isotopic data will change in the future and so will change also the mean annual values of this composite … .. Am I wrong?

In the trace Ion Chemistry section 3.1 I do find information on the precisions of the different analyses published in different papers …. I would recommend some reorganization (adding a table perhaps). The figure 4 and Table 2 are never cited in the text … please add.

Line 142: figure 6 is at the end of the paper …. Why?

Line 146: see my comments above (from -9 or from -11??).

Line 163: Figure 7 at the end of the paper. Why?

Line 190: please explain the negative concentration values in figures B9 to B11.

In Appendix B, I found very useful the explanation of the data file headers but some of them are after the Reference section … again I would suggest some reorganizations of the structure.

From figure B1 to B6, please, add in the figure captions the explanation of the panel at the bottom.

The paper presents the ice core data from Law Dome, extending the previously published works and updating some of the available datasets. It sets a great example to the community to make the data from this iconic site available. The paper is well-written, provides the appropriate level of detail and I recommend it is accepted for publication. I only have a few minor suggestions for the text and figures below.

While I appreciate the importance of updating previously published records, I do agree that the paper might be improved if you specified why this is the case. Speaking as a user of ice core datasets I appreciate the good practice. It is also refreshing to see an age-scale revisited and more generous errors applied. However, perhaps you could spell this out in the introduction as justification for this work. For example, for large-scale reconstructions, data compilations or data-model comparisons (e.g., the PAGES compilations), it is essential that the most accurate records are available and citable.  

Minor comments.

I found the jump between main paper, figures, and appendix a bit difficult to follow. For this style of data paper is an appendix needed? Or could the figures be included in the main text?

Line 50 – I found the word sequence “seasonal species variations” a bit odd. Perhaps “seasonal deposition of species”?

Table 2. It might be useful to include the time in the caption. Are these values calculated for the full length of the record?

Line 165 – closed bracket needed.

Line 171 – consider rephrasing. This sentence suggests that there are two definitions for summer which doesn’t read well. What you mean is that different seasonal separations have been applied in different studies. But on its own, this sentence seems to suggest there is a summer and a warm period.

4.4. This data was also used in the PAGES 2k data compilation for snow accumulation. So, I assume this also needs to be updated?

Figure 6 – Perhaps align the legends? Cl and snow accumulation headings seem out of place.

Figure A2 – Please increase the font site for the titles and legend.