This article describes in detail the Italian Historical Archives (ASMI) project. This ambitious project is based on the INGV's long and serious expertise in the observation of seismological and macroseismic data and in the construction of databases.

The article accurately shows the place of the project in the Italian environment of historical data and its coupling with the European level (EPOS - AHEAD).

I liked the way the article was constructed, and its structure is well suited to describing the project. The authors demonstrate a high level of competence in their approach to the project and a strong interplay of scientific and technical skills. 

There are, however, a few points that could be added or completed to perfect this excellent editorial work.

1/ In general :

1a/It seems to me that a few comparative elements could be included in this paper to clarify the role of the DBMI database in relation to the ASMI database, which seems to include all the macro-seismic data present in DBMI. In my reading, DBMI seems to me to be a bit like a duplicate of ASMI (without the instrumental) in the Italian environment. I have to admit that it's not all that clear to me. What is the place/role of DBMI in relation to ASMI? Are there any data or services in DBMI that are not contained in or accessible through ASMI? 

1b/No information is given on the quality and/or uncertainty associated with the MDP values and locations (cf Sisfrance A,B,C quality : safe, medium safe, uncertain). It would be interesting to explain the reasons for this (perhaps in 2.3, c/ MDP macroseismic datapoint (line 155)). For scientific use of the data, the qualitative value of the information can have a major impact on the results particularly for historical earthquakes.

1c/In the ASMI database, polygons of uncertainty in the location of the macroseismic epicentre appear; it would also be interesting to specify this in the article. 

2/ line 69: ... ‘the macroseismic intensity value quantifying the effects of that earthquake on people and buildings,...’

Add also the effects on objects and furniture (used for low intensities in all macroseismic scales)

3/ Line 150: ... ‘epicentral intensity’ specify whether this is a single calculation ASMI method for all events (if so, add a reference), or whether it is specific to each MDP dataset.

4/ Line 161: ... ‘with its maximum observed intensity’ specify whether this is the maximum observed ‘In Italy’ or ‘for the event whatever the country’ or ‘for the series of data displayed’.

5/I think it would also be interesting for the reader to see the feedback or monitoring method used to track the use of this database by users, perhaps over the last year (national and international users, graphs of download, user feedback).

6/ in your conclusion, Perhaps you could write 2 or 3 lines detailing the future developments envisaged for the project, to place it in a dynamic evolutionary process, for example with regard to data visualisation tools, export formats, possible additional information on the data (epicentral distance of MDP), cross-border exchanges, possible revisions...  

I would like to congratulate you on writing this article and on setting a benchmark for Europe.

Review of “The Italian Archive of Historical Earthquake Data, ASMI”

The paper “The Italian Archive of Historical Earthquake Data, ASMI” submitted for publication in ESSD by Rovida, Locati, Antonucci and Camassi, describes ASMI in technical detail. This is, data and metadata input, management, access, relationship with other databases, as well as important internal technical details are presented and discussed.

The different steps followed and decisions taken in the building up of the database are presented and thoroughly discussed. Basically, I agree with the presented methodology and obtained results.

In an overview, and to my understanding, the submitted article is properly written. Presentation and discussion of the different topics covered are well organized. The examples have been properly selected and are presented with enough detail level. Figures are appropriated and clear. Finally, the bibliography covers well the presented issues and is quite comprehensive.

I’ll not go into many details on the submitted written text. I fully agree with those pointed out at RC1.

From one hand, a comment/criticism I can point is that the submitted paper is not a 100% research paper. It describes the present status and structure of the Italian Archive of Historical (and not so historical) Earthquake Data presenting its last updates and improvements. The continuous improvement and updating of the macroseismic databases and related materials are a task assigned (sometimes by law) to almost all national seismological surveys over Europe. In this sense, the submitted paper fits more in the category of “report” than of research paper. On the other side, it is important that the new developed database, its main characteristics and the details of their elaboration being known to the research community. This is a common dilemma on research journals and decision about to publish such contents depends much more on the editorial board line than on reviewers.

On the other hand, the presented contents/results of ASMI are relevant for the improvement and dissemination of knowledge of the macroseismic field of (Italian) earthquakes. Also, they are relevant for the optimization of further studies about the macroseismic field of past Italian earthquakes as it summarizes previous studies about them. Such approach saves large amount of time to future researchers and avoids duplication of tasks. Moreover, the presented methodologies can be used in many other places worldwide and the submitted paper can be used as guide for similar databases elsewhere. Thus, I think the submitted paper fits properly on the scope of ESSD.

Three small bugs:

Lines 192/193.- …managed by INGV staff (instead of personnel).

Line 569.- Registry of research data repositories, re3data (instead of res3data).

Line 589.- The citation “SisFrance” as it is right now, is an internal citation in ASMI (https://emidius.mi.ingv.it/ASMI/study/SISFR016). The year “2016” means that the data in ASMI were collected in 2016?

Otherwise, it is better to cite as “SisFrance: Sismicité històrique de la France métropolitaine, https://sisfrance.net, last accessed...”