This manuscript presents a digitized and homogenized historical gravity dataset for the territory of Lithuania, incorporating data from mid-20th century gravity surveys and network stations. The dataset has been transformed into modern geodetic and gravimetric reference systems (ETRS89, EVRS07, IGSN71) and is made publicly available via Zenodo. This is a valuable contribution to the field, particularly for applications in regional geoid modeling and Earth gravity field studies.

The manuscript should be published as soon as possible, but only after substantial revision in both its presentation and clarity to meet the standards of Earth System Science Data.

This article presents re-processed historical gravity data for Lithuania. Updating the data is a logical step that will make the Lithuanian gravity database more accessible and useful. The process of transforming the dataset to modern coordinate systems and gravity datums involved several steps:

1. Determining normal heights, which were not available for all data points
2. Transforming latitude, longitude and elevation to a modern, European datum (ETRS89 and EVRS07)
3. Converting gravity values to a modern international reference system (IGSN71)

The manuscript outlines the challenges in re-processing this dataset, namely the need to digitise data from paper records and dealing with data points that do not have normal heights associated with them. Despite these challenges, a valuable new dataset has been developed and made available to the community.

Below I provide the following responses to the ESSD review criteria. I have also uploaded an annotated pdf of the article with further comments and suggestions for edits.

Are the data and methods presented new? Whilst the data is not strictly new, they have been re-processed to bring them up to modern standards.

Is there any potential of the data being useful in the future? Yes. Anyone planning to use the data for a range of applications (geoid modelling to geological interpretation) will appreciate having access to a this revised and improved dataset.

Are methods and materials described in sufficient detail? Yes. The steps applied to re-process the data are laid out well and include examples of calculations at each step.

Are any references/citations to other data sets or articles missing or inappropriate? Not that I am aware of. It may be possible to include additional details of some cited publications.

Is the article itself appropriate to support the publication of a data set? Yes. The article describes the processing steps applied to the data.

Is the data set accessible via the given identifier? Yes. I successfully downloaded the data from the Zenodo DOI link provided. I had no trouble using the downloaded dataset to grid the data and generate maps of free-air and Bouguer anomalies.

Is the data set complete? Yes, the data provided is sufficient. Whilst some equivalent datasets in other parts of the world might provide additional data (e.g. spherical cap Bouguer corrections, terrain corrections), this dataset is a good basis for further work.

Are error estimates and sources of errors given (and discussed in the article)? Yes. Sources of error are discussed in the article and estimates of the error are mentioned in the article and included as a column in the downloaded data.

Are the accuracy, calibration, processing, etc. state of the art? Are common standards used for comparison? The dataset uses acceptable formulae for transforming coordinates and gravity data between outdated and modern datums, and for calculating gravity anomalies. Whilst a basic Bouguer correction (infinite slab) has been used and no terrain corrections are provided, these are things that users of the dataset should be able to apply themselves (or perhaps the authors will assist in that process?).

Is the data set significant – unique, useful, and complete? Yes. See introductory comments above.

Article and data set: are there any inconsistencies within these, implausible assertions or data, or noticeable problems which would suggest the data are erroneous (or worse). If possible, apply tests (e.g. statistics). The article and the dataset are consistent and there are no implausible assertions. However, I do feel that there perhaps needs to be some more discussion of the quality of the final dataset. After I downloaded the data and gridded it, I noticed that there are artefacts in the gridded data (see file of Bouguer anomalies uploaded, 0.5' cell size). Whilst I only quickly gridded the data (using GMT) without much thought as to ideal parameters, I think it would be important to include a map in the article that shows gridded free-air and Bouguer anomalies and, with reference to those maps, a short discussion of those artefacts, their likely source, some suggestions as to how to overcome them, and some comments on the limitations that these artefacts impose when interpreting the data. I think it is important to make clear to readers and/or potential users of the dataset that the dataset is not perfect.

Is the data set itself of high quality? Yes, the dataset is of the best quality possible for data collected several decades ago that is partly missing some of the critical information needed for re-processing (e.g. missing station elevations, only paper maps available).

Is the data set usable in its current format and size? Yes. The datafiles downloaded from Zenodo are small in size and readily convertible to a desired format.

Are the formal metadata appropriate? The downloaded data comes with a README file, but this is quite brief. I'm not sure if the journal expects a formal, more detailed metadata file to be included with the dataset, but all the relevant information that a user would need is included in the article.

Is the length of the article appropriate? Yes. It is compact and presents the key elements of the reprocessing steps.

Is the overall structure of the article well structured and clear? Is the language consistent and precise? Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used?  Yes. The article is readable and the structure is logical (description of the historical dataset and its deficiencies, details of the processing steps applied to coordinates, elevations and gravity measurements to modernise the dataset). As noted above, I suggest a useful addition would be a short section presenting the gridded data and a discussion of the deficiencies in the dataset (that are of course largely unavoidable given the age of the data and the missing information for large parts of the historical dataset). The language is understandable and the mathematical formulae and symbols are adequately presented and described (though I have noted a few minor points below). In some places, more specific mention of the units of the gravity data (mGal) could be added. I have provided some suggested language edits (and comments) in the uploaded pdf.

Are figures and tables correct and of high quality? I think some of the figures could be improved. For example, the maps in figures 1, 2, 5 and 9 would be better as proper maps with axes, coordinate labels and, where necessary, a legend. See also my comment above about including a figure with maps showing gridded free-air and Bouguer data.

Is the data set publication, as submitted, of high quality? Yes. The dataset downloaded is accessible and contains the information needed by potential users.