Dear authors
From the replies I can see you are inclined to submit the revised version.

Please prepare the reply/rebuttal on all referees' points (based on your already submitted replies), and show clearly how the manuscript is revised. This will be sent to the reviewers. (The next stage of reviewes is not open.)
Regards, and a very merry Christmas!

The authors addressed the comments. The revised manuscript will be sent to the same reviewers fior their assessment. .

I have communicated some additinal comments in another section, and here I would like to state, that based on the referees' comments (Referee 1 report in a separate file), I would qualify the next stage as the "paper revision". (Not the major revision, but still a revision.) Plese address all comments of the refrees, and try to focus on the important messages and core findings, avoiding obvious statements and minor details.

Referee 3 has a number of useful comments - which is advised to address. Most of tehm concern the proper definitions and distinction between a goodness-of fit measure based on an streamflow characteristics, and traditional calibration criterion.

Finally we have all reviews in - and, based on them, I can recommend the paper for publication.