The authors should decide what paper they want to write. The initial history of SSDs with references is good, but much too brief for a review paper and omits one important topic (censored data) and barely mentions another (Bayesian methods).
To say they focused on two software packages, SSD Tool Box and ssdtools, is an overstatement. The discussion of both packages is very limited. I was expecting more.
A second contribution is a discussion of model averaging applied to SSDs. The literature cited is useful. It would have been helpful to include a few detailed examples showing the utility or dangers of such an approach. It would also … Read More
Example data are presented in terms of several histograms, with one exception. In the SSD depicted, the data are not illustrated, nor are they provided so the reader can try to fit a model, either the one they summarize or … Read More
promote the need for models that can be used for bi- or multi-modal distributions. While this is interesting, the authors have not made a convincing case that this is a pressing need. It would have been useful if they could … Read More
The language and format of the manuscript have to be carefully checked. The citations are poorly formatted, e.g. what is ENV 2019?
Detailed raw data (e.g. toxicity thresholds collected for establishing SSD) and calculations are suggested to be listed.
Compare the results, e.g. HC5 and quality benchmarks, derived by the new method and the traditional method, and discuss the environmental reality of the results
this manuscript mainly focuses on summarizing the previous status and the recently introduced tools, the implications of the new toolbox are lack, which reduces the contribution of this manuscript on SSD evolvement
the organization beginning on page 11 could use some improvement. The text gets dense and it is difficult to find the recommendations following the suggestions indicated in the first paragraph