Comments to
Effects of univariate and multivariate bias correction on hydrological impact projections in alpine catchments
By J. Meyer et al.

Both reviewers indicate that it is an interesting paper but requires some redesign. I agree with this assessment. For example, in the intro, the authors mention the objectives of the study but do not mention the scientific hypothesis on this this study is funded. In fact, this word is not even mentioned in the manuscript. It is also important to make clear why the state of the art leads to formulate such hypothesis. Otherwise a manuscript becomes a case study. This could be done based on the proposed objectives.

Technically, I would like to see a proper comparison with existing methods such as that of Hempen et al.

Hempel, S., K. Frieler, L. Warszawski, J. Schewe, and F. Piontek (2013), A trend-preserving bias correction: the ISI-MIP approach, Earth Syst. Dynam., 4(2), 219–236, doi:10.5194/esd-4-219-2013.

As mentioned by the both reviewers, a proper model validation and crossvaligdation should be carried out. Nowhere in the paper a validation period is mentioned. Model performances against observation are not presented in any form. This is a must in this kind of studies.

English style should be revised thoroughly.

Based on the comments mentioned above and bearing in mind the HESS
publishing standards for a research article, I recommend to return this paper to the Authors for major revisions.

Luis Samaniego

I read the revised version and I am satisfied with the new version. I congratulate the authors for the great work. In may opinion it can be published on its present form.