the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 24 Jul 2025
Peer-review of data products: an automated assistance system for INTERMAGNET
Abstract. INTERMAGNET, a global network of geomagnetic observatories, publishes so-called "definitive" data products, which are subjected to an international peer-review system. Currently, geomagnetic data is submitted by about 100 observatories worldwide. Besides the mandatory one-minute (1-min) data products, INTERMAGNET has also accepted one-second (1 Hz, 1-sec) data products for the past decade. The amount of data to be reviewed has significantly increased, making traditional manual data reviews increasingly challenging. The INTERMAGNET ROBOT (short IMBOT) has been developed to perform automated routines to convert and evaluate INTERMAGNET (IM) data submissions. The primary objectives of IMBOT are to (1) simplify one-second and one-minute data submissions for providers, (2) speed up the evaluation process significantly, (3) consider current IM archive formats and meta information, (4) simplify and speed up the peer-review process and finally, (5) reduce the workload of human data checkers. IMBOT automatically generates detailed reports and notifies submitting institutes and human referees. It provides templates for corrections and also triggers re-evaluations automatically when data or any information in the submission directory is updated. This automated system makes data review faster and more reliable, providing high-quality data for the geomagnetic community.
- Preprint
(594 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2553', Santiago Marsal, 31 Jul 2025
This is a relevant manuscript that addresses the task of ensuring the delivery of high-quality data from geomagnetic observatories to the end user, and how a number of those tasks have been automated by IMBOT, the INTERMAGNET ROBOT, which has been developed to perform automated routines and quality controls that would otherwise have to be carried out unselfishly by (human) data checkers, thus speeding-up the process. I believe that IMBOT is an outstanding tool and I assume that the work behind it is enormous and deserves recognition, and this manuscript is a good opportunity to do so.
For this reason, and because the presentation is well structured and clear, I recommend the publication of this manuscript, essentially in its current form, except for a few technical issues or typos, as described below. My only “minor comment”, also described below, is the addition of a diagram or flowchart to summarize IMBOT’s tasks, which could replace current Figure 1.
Technical/minor comments:
L153: “server-currently”: replace the hyphen with a long dash, otherwise it can be confused with a compound word.
L170: I guess the acronym “wine” should be capitalized (at least the first letter). Please check.
L175 vs. L170: check1MIN vs. Check1min. Please, cHecK for consistency between capital letters.
L178: Use a different format for the wildcard characters yyyy in “imoyyyy.blv”, e.g., italics or bold.
L218: file-or: remove the hyphen.
L237: the provided F values have very likely been calculated from the vector data.
L269: Add a space between 5 and nT.
Fig. 1: The fact that the data in step 2 has not changed with respect to the data in step 1 does not need to be supported by a figure. It is perfectly clear from the text. However, I would strongly recommend adding a diagram or flowchart representing IMBOT's tasks. I believe this will help the reader to gain an overview of IMBOT's usefulness in relation to the manual process, while also supporting and summarizing the description of the tasks carried out in section 4.
L320: Remove the dot after 23.
L352: in-official or unofficial?
L358: Adept or adapt?
L366: … in case such meta-information was missing.
L373: … due to insufficient …
Fig. 6: I'm probably missing something, but there are 25 observatories in the x axis, while a total of 29 observatories provided data in 2022 according to Table 1. Is this because ABK, DED and HRN have been removed (as specified in L353)? But anyway, there is still one missing observatory(?).
Final remark for the Conclusions: Would the authors dare to give a figure for the amount of work that IMBOT saves human data checkers? This would help the reader to understand the importance of this tool. For example: “since its implementation, IMBOT has reduced the workload of data checkers by approximately x %”. Or: “It is estimated that the work carried out by IMBOT is equivalent to x hours of human labour”.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2553-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2553', Amoré Nel, 06 Aug 2025
This manuscript presents a timely update in the peer review of geomagnetic data products: The authors introduce IMBOT, an automated assistance system designed to streamline the validation of both one-minue and one second data submissions to INTERMAGNET. The tool addressses a real operational need to reduce the burden on volunteer data referees while ensuring adherence to rigorous data quality and formatting standards. The manuscript is well structured, technically sound, and written clearly. The Figures in this version are all present and supports the content of the manuscript.
Major comments
--------------1. "final judgement of data quality or more sophisticated analysis... is subject of a final analysis by a human data checker" (Section 6): The manuscript could benefit from a deeper discussion on the boundaries of automation e.g., how are final decisions handled? How is the human referee alerted, and what tools are they provided with to validate these?
2. Given that the IMAGCDF format is still evolving, how adaptable is IMBOT to new versions? Will support be actively maintained, and is there a defined update pathway for future INTERMAGNET requirements?
3. The authors mention modularity as a strength ("IMBOT is written completely modular. Each checking technique is described and coded in an individual module. Thus, IMBOT can be simply extended or modified towards other tests and data sets"). Could this system (or a forked version) be adapted to other global geomagnetic networks such as MAGDAS?
Minor comments
--------------1. Terms such as 'step 1', 'step 2' etc. are used but a flow diagram or table summarising these steps would be aid clarity, especially for users outside INTERMAGNET.
2. The appendix gives helpful guidance on metadata structure. However, a sample filled-in meta_IMO.txt template would be useful for user guidance (maybe as a figure or in the appendix).
3. Page 18 Author contributions 'testing environemnts' -> 'testing environments'.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2553-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2553', Anonymous Referee #3, 20 Aug 2025
Peer review:
Peer-review of data products: an automated assistance system for INTERMAGNET, Leonhardt, R. and Heumez, B. and Raita, T. and Reda, J.
Summary:
The authors present a new automated method/tool, “IMBOT,” designed to improve the efficiency of the otherwise high-load and time-consuming peer review of data products, with particular emphasis on the INTERMAGNET 1-sec and 1-min definitive data. The manuscript provides valuable insights for data users, quality control specialists, and geomagnetic observatory operators responsible for submitting this type of data. Overall, it is a well-written contribution with a clear workflow and a coherent structure.
Only few minor comments:
In general, please revise the consistency in the use of the terms step 1, step 2, and step 3, as they appear in three different forms throughout the manuscript.
I recommend including a figure or workflow diagram to illustrate the IMBOT work process and its associated tasks.
L24: The term 1-min is used (as introduced in the abstract), but from this point onward the manuscript consistently uses one-minute. Please ensure consistency in terminology.
L106, L258, L259 and L269: Add a space in 5nT → 5 nT.
L257: Add a space in 0.3nT → 0.3 nT.
L267: Add a space in 3nT → 3 nT.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2553-RC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 275 | 30 | 16 | 321 | 23 | 23 |
- HTML: 275
- PDF: 30
- XML: 16
- Total: 321
- BibTeX: 23
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1