Dear Authors,

please, take into consideration when revising your manuscript all given comments and suggestions by the three reviewers. Especially the suggestions by Reviewer #3 (quoted):

"I would even suggest to rethink the concept and maybe redo the analysis,
calibrating only the material parameters. If the data allows, I suggest to use subsets
of the landslide inventory which can be assigned to well-defined rainfall events, and to
apply the corresponding rainfall intensities and durations to the model."

are quite critical. The Reviewer #1 is more or less easy to incorporate into the revised version of the text. Please, carefully read the text to omit any new misspelled words or typing errors.

After thinking whether to decline the paper or give a free way to proceed with the reviewing process, your answers to the reviewers' comments show a way out. But, because of some critical comments of the reviewers, the revised version will be sent out for a new round of revision.

Sincerely Yours,

Matjaž Mikoš
Handling Editor

Dear authors,

one reviewer asks only for some technical corrections, please, incorporate his few minor suggestions. There is more about the skepticism of the second reviewer. Please, read carefully his suggestions to some substantial restructuring of the paper, stressing different things such as the aim of the paper to be clearly stated, overview of others' studies using Object Modeling System, more details about the areas studies, stress the limitations of the study performed when trying to transfer the results to other areas around the world, introducing "Results and Discussion" section into the manuscript, clear concluding notes.

All in all, a restructuring of the manuscript is needed to make the paper's message to the readership that might apply your methodology more clear,

sincerely Yours,

Matjaž Mikoš
Handling Editor

Dear Authors,

after receiving your revised manuscript, it can now be accepted for publication after some technical corrections will be made.

Please, see the attached Editor's Comments in a separate pdf. Especially be careful about the way references are listed and cited - some are missing in the text and vice-versa. Please, see the HESS style on web page:

http://www.hydrology-and-earth-system-sciences.net/for_authors/manuscript_preparation.html

Please, be also careful for subscripts in the text (Gs and Sr - line 201) and superscripts in the text (i.e. for units of transmissivity (m2/d) in Table 2, or for square/cubic meters - lines 198, 199).

With regard to the reviewers' comments and suggestions, I would recommend to add the word "shallow" to the paper's title, so that it will be more clear, which types of landslides you have analyses in the study.

Thank you for choosing HESS as the journal to publish your research results,

sincerely Yours,

Matjaž Mikoš
Handling Editor