Intro: when you give reference to Monachesi et al 2013, you should add the reference to: Brown, T.M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 685, L121 since this (and the earlier papers from the same authors) is among the pioneers in the field. The Brown et al. papers appear to indicate evidence for merger accretion, which would go well in the second paragraph of the Intro (second 1/2 of page 2 onward). ** Thanks Sample Selection: As you remark, the GALEX exposures for 2 galaxies are very shallow: Is it worth to include these anyway? Likely your conclusions do not change if you remove them, and select a more uniform sample (although, keeping them at this point does not hurt). Do you notice any effect from the shallower exposure? It is not currently discussed in the paper, but do you notice a difference in the results yielded by galaxies with deeper or shallower GALEX images? ** I should have done a better job in preventing the REUs from choosing shallow GALEX targets! It turns out that the SED fits are UV-poor only for the outermost annulus in these two targets. I toyed with tossing them from the analysis, but since the main punchline deals with an ensemble average and not the specifics of any one galaxy, I decided to include them. Section 3.3: `processed in the usual manner' -> `processed with standard procedures' ** Thanks Section 4: why did you choose a set of external apertures for the sky, instead of the standard annulus? ** Hand-selecting sky regions gives me more flexibility and I don't have to worry about editing very bright foreground stars. Section 4.1: can you list the adopted position angles and ellipticities of the ellipses in Table 1? ** Done Section 4.2 and beyond: in addition to fit the annuli, have you tried to fit the entire galaxy? This would provide a sanity check to your results. ** Yep. Global values exactly match the sum of all annular values, and globals match well those in the literature, as described in the text. Also: do you have H-alpha measurements (from either NED or other sources) that you could use as additional constraint to the results? The specific question is the following: if you use the H-alpha to measure the current SFR, is the CIGALE best fit output able to reproduce it? ** For essentially all EDGES targets Liese has shallower ground-based data, especially BRHa. But I've declined to use those since they are so much shallower and one of the main goals here is to see what's happening in the outskirts. However, you've given me an idea to compare the global SFRs CIGALE produces to those using Rob's H-alpha and my 24um. I've added a new figure that shows they all agree to within a factor of ~2, and the average ratio is 0.94. Section 5.1: I wonder if it may make sense to add another table of fluxes, listing the fluxes in each annulus, instead of just the integrated ones. Again about fluxes: how do you use the WISE 12 micron fluxes? Is there any evidence for PAH emission? If so, how do you treat it? For the galaxies for which there are Herschel data, have you tried to fit the wavelengths longer than 24/70 microns? ** I use the 12um fluxes like any other flux: they help to fill out the spectrum and thus improve the SED fits. Naturally, they are tracing PAH features, which are fully accounted for in the SED fits since I use dust models that incorporate PAH features. In my response to your next question below, I have added a figure indicating some representative fits to help answer this concern. General comment: I am worried about only using the 24 micron to constrain the FIR emission (energy balance): the 24 micron emission is a minor fraction of the total TIR (and you know it better than I do....). Most galaxies are sufficiently extended that you should be able to use the MIPS 160 micron data without much loss. Alternatively, you could perform a few experiments on a few galaxies (maybe the 3-4 most extended) using coarser annuli, but more complete SEDs, esp. in the FIR. ** My first-blush response is: Hey, at least I'm using dust emission to help constrain A_V! Most studies out there focus on just the UV/optical data, so I figure we're at least one step beyond that. Moreover, I'm also using 12um data to help constrain the dust; it's not just the 24um emission that is constraining the dust. However, I took your advice and carried out an experiment on n5055 for which the resolution of Herschel data is not an issue given my annular widths. A couple things immediately became clear: i) detecting far-infrared emission beyond R25 is tough (but we don't expect much attenuation of the optical light out there), and ii) including FIR data does not significantly change the CIGALE output for the inner regions. Also, can you add a multi-panel figure, showing the data and the best fitting SEDs for a set of chosen galaxy/annuli combinations? ** Done Effects of inclination: you also mention inclination effects in section 5.2: this is a question I had asked myself earlier, and I am not sure how well CIGALE treats cases of mixing along the line of sight. Do you get any systematic trends for the SED fitting parameters as a function of inclination? ** No, and Figure 7 is one way to convey that. Figure 6, bottom: would you be able to assign different symbols/colors to galaxies of different morphological type? I wonder if morphology has any impact on the observed trend.... You have the individual galaxies in Figure 8, but grouping them by morphology would be more powerful. ** It's pretty tough to accommodate that; it just gets to be too much crammed into that space. But I've added the morphological types to the figure that shows the individual tau profiles. Nothing too obvious comes across in terms of morphology. Page 11, middle paragraph: I wonder how your conclusions fit with the conclusions from Wang et al. 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1081, where they find evidence for inside-out SF in HI-rich galaxies. Is any of your galaxies HI-rich? Are there HI obs. for your galaxies in NED? ** The EDGES sample is not particularly HI-rich, but we did a pilot project in Cycle 6 for 9 HI-extended galaxies. Plus, Liese's student is working on getting HI data for the moderately-inclined subset of EDGES. I reference Wang+11 in the Introduction when I review inside-out disk formation. Page 12, top: I am not sure why a deviation of 0.02 should be considered large. Is this a typo? Can the broad distribution of alpha be a product of a dearth of strong constrains on the TIR emission, since you limit the fits to the 24 micron flux value? ** Thanks for catching that typo. A few comments on the Tables: Table 1: how have you selected the distances for the galaxies? I.e., what kind of distances are these? You may want to consider to have more descriptive footnotes for the meaning of the columns. For instance, it would not hurt to specify that A_V is the Milky Way foreground extinction. ** Good point. I decided to toss that column from the table, since the distances play no real role in this paper. Ideally I'd list the values from Kennicutt+08, but he only has 10 of these 15 galaxies in there. Liese compiled these using NED at the time of the proposal. Table 2: when you say that integration times are in secs per position, does it mean that each `pixel' has been integrated for that long? I am asking because this is relevant for the IR images.... Another suggestion, not sure it is for table 2 or some other place: it would be informative to have the list of angular resolutions of each facility/band combination, since this drives the resolution of your convolution. ** It's per position on the sky, i.e., after combining all dithered frames. I've added the angular resolutions to the Table 2 notes. Table 3: for the Chabrier IMF, you may want to specify the stellar mass range. ** I've asked Mederic the answer to this question!