Reading through the introduction, it seems that finding excess  
emission in the SINGS galaxies is an important motivation of the  
paper. However, you only talk about it in the paper in a short  
subsection at the end (section 4.6). There is more text about excess  
emission in the introduction and summary sections than in the body of  
the paper. It could be a matter of personal taste, but I think the  
emphasis on excess emission should be toned down a bit in the  
introduction, by reducing the section and/or putting it later in the  
introduction.

*** Excellent point.  I struggled with these sorts of issues with this paper, because it's mostly a presentation of data and actively avoids overlapping with the science aims of other team members.  I modified the text a bit to place more emphasis on the utility of submm data in probing 15-20 K dust.

Have you made comparisons between the dust masses calculated with two  
modified blackbodies (MBB) and the Draine & Li models (DL07)? Are they  
similar? You talk about it in the section 4.5 and Dunne & Eales 2001  
but you only show a comparison between a single MBB and DL07.

*** That's a valid point.  I ultimately decided to leave this issue to Karl Gordon's forthcoming paper on comparing dust masses using different models/techniques.

Maybe this is outside the scope of the paper, but it would be a good  
idea to quantify the excess dust emission and try to correlate it with  
some galaxy properties, such as metallicity, or a measure of the  
hardness of the radiation field (such as [NeIII]/[NeII], as the excess  
seems to coincide with low metallicity dwarf galaxies.

*** Great idea.  But other KINGFISHers are studying the submm
excess (e.g., Gordon, Galametz, Hunt).