Discussion of previous work could be described more clearly #138
Description
Discussion of previous work could be described more clearly (“Comparison to previous work”). We really appreciated the efforts of the authors to contextualize their findings with respect to Kistler & Bedford, the two studies by Bhatt et al and Barrat-Charlaix & Neher, but we found this section somewhat challenging to follow logically. It might be useful to briefly report the findings from these studies (and this study) in some sort of comparative table showing what is similar and what differs between the different analyses? Part of the challenge is that the section jumps around chronologically and it was unclear to us in several places what studies or observations certain pronouns (“they” and “their”) referred to. Shorter paragraphs with more declarative topic sentences might help us follow the argument better. How do the authors explain the findings of Kistler & Bedford if these reference-specific reversions are neutral?