I think in the introduction it might be worth going into a bit more detail about why the optical photometry is "suspect", even if it's just a sentence. It's just a bit jolting the way it is. 

** Agreed.  I've added a short explanatory blurb

Section 2 starts with Table 5 referenced, but we only have 3 tables. I guess this is really Table 1.

** Sorry --- I hadn't yet gotten to the point of properly organizing the tables.

In the list of galaxies interacting with neighbors, NGC 1097 might be included, if you count the small dwarf near the end of one of its big spiral arms. The dwarf is PGC10479.

** Done

Section 3.1 What are the tens of milling corrections suggested by Scolnic? Didn't understand what those are.

** Done

For 3.2, I will get you some text soon that explains the SPIRE changes. Because I think your SPIRE photometry values from 2012 are different from the publicly released KINGFISH data, which may be different from 2014. Maybe it's also worth putting the beam size changes in terms of percentages here first rather than just listing the values, as well as where you have them in section 4.1?

** Done

In section 3.6, I guess I might add the qualifier "detectable" before "emission at every wavelength".

** Done

Section 5, I agree that it seemed like Kirkpatrick showed no submm excess after your original paper. Yet I feel like other papers claimed it is in some galaxies...like M33
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A%26A...590A..56H
and LMC/SMC
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...797...85G
or star-forming dwarfs
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A%26A...570A..97I
so I would say it is worth revisiting for this paper.

** Done