We would like to thank the reviewers for the comments which helped to
improve the paper. Below we answer to specific issues. In addition, a
number of small phrasing changes were made, which we do not mention as
they don't affect the meaning of the text.

> Referee: 1
>
>  [...]
> 
> - I would suggest to add in the Introduction a wider presentation of
>   the physical interest of the study of 209Bi in the present energy
>   range,

Added a short passage on 209Bi as a suitable subject for activation
technique in the Introduction.

> - it is my personal opinion that the uncertainty discussion of the
>   experimental data is very poor: a wider analysis (statistical and
>   systematic) of every uncertainty source, related to the used
>   experimental technique is needed (for instance it is not clear to me
>   what is the uncertainty of the monitored photon flux).  In the
>   irradiated target are there competitive activations due to other
>   nuclei then bismuth producing physical background and what are their
>   weight?  The experiment background deserves a wider attention and
>   discussion.
> 
> What are the advantages and the drawbacks of investigating by photon
> activation technique the neutron/proton emission cross section of
> 209Bi in this energy range?  The cross section figures are reported
> always without any error indication (neither statistical nor
> systematic), even in the captions of the Tables shown in the text.  I
> think it would have a stronger meanings comparing computed data with
> experimental ones if the latter are accompanied by their
> uncertainties.

The data analysis procedure was described with more detail to make the
uncertainty sources more clear. We included results of X-ray
fluorescence analysis of the bismuth target, and a discussion of the
effect that impurities have on the results in section 3 ("Model
calculations"). Also the uncertainty of the accelerator beam flux is
now stated. As to the experimental background, we specified in this
version that the detector was operated in a low-background shielding
chamber. The description of the spectrum analysis step was expanded to
state explicitly that the Compton and peak background in spectra was
accounted for during peak fitting. We also mention that the detector
efficiency curve is calculated using a calibrated Geant4 model.

Concerning the systematical error sources, we named the major ones,
and mentioned that other error sources contribute less than 1% to the
uncertainty.

We also made a description of the computer error notation that is used
throughout the paper: the number in parentheses denotes the error of
the last significant digit of a value.

> Referee: 2
> 
> [...]
>
> In general I appreciated a lot the paper, my main concern is only
> related to the fact that it should be a bit more self-consistent: it’s
> nice to send to references for details but some important infos should
> be present. This will not affect the length and/or the weight of the
> paper but will help a lot the reader.

We expanded the description of the experimental procedure. Specific
additions are described below.

> Other issue is that sometimes I don’t see errors quantified. I wrote
> explicitly below.  In general I’m pretty sure you can include the
> comments, so I don’t need to review the revised version.

This issue has been commented on above.

> Line 40: put the web sites on the references of the codes (references
> [5] and [6], see later)

Fixed (although to our knowledge the GNASH code does not have a web site).

> Line 45: bremsstrahlung beam: please specify from where the beam is
> coming and how it is obtained. I think it is worth to write something
> like “bremsstrahlung photons produced using the electron beam of the
> 55.6 MeV racetrack microtron RTM-55 of the Skobeltyn…(SINP MSU)” with
> a correct reference. Later, in the second section it is referred to
> Ref.[23], that is an old proceeding done for the commissioning,
> available on
> https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/r10/papers/thchd01.pdf, I’m
> wondering if there is something more recent available.

We described the bremsstrahlung production method. A newer (2012)
reference to the accelerator was added.

> Line 33: All details of the setup and analysis are given in
> Ref. [20-22], in particular everything can be extracted from NIM paper
> Ref.[22] but I think it is important to spend few lines for a short
> summary and a sketch of the setup for the experiment. For the same
> reason, some details, like the “energy spread” is missing.

As it was already mentioned we expanded the description of the
experimental and analysis part. The electron energy spread figure was
added.

> Line 45: HPGe detector, at least the first time it will be better to
> have the full name “High Purity Germanium (HPGe) detector” and to
> specify its role, something like “to measure photon spectra of
> residual activity”. Again, I would appreciate to see here the relative
> efficiency and energy resolution.

The parameters of the HPGe detector are added.

> 
> Lines 57-60/page2 + 1-2/page3: 
> 
> - there are not specified errors in Tab.1, as mentioned in the text;
> 
> - specify from where the errors are coming (about 5% for the position
>   of the irradiated part with respect to the target and about 10% for
>   the uncertainty if the thickness of the copper foil used as a
>   monitor target)

This issue has been already commented on.

> 
> Model Calculations - page 3
> 
> Line 10: a very nice description of the photoabsorption cross section
> by different model calculations is made. Referring to the
> photoabsorption cross section in TALYS, the Ref.[31] mentioned is a
> PhD thesis from 1972: nothing new later?

Unfortunately no newer reference is available. The cross sections of
the mentioned PhD thesis are currently recommended in the last version
of the RIPL reference data library.

> Evaluated photoneutron cross section - page 6
> 
> Lines 2-4: can you quantify the uncertainties of the instrument
> function and the corresponding energy shifts?

The text passage under discussion describes the photoneutron cross
sections obtained using the method of bremsstrahlung deconvolution (or
unfolding). Clearly this method fundamentally relies on the quality of
the instrument function, that is the bremsstrahlung spectrum in this
case. In the 1970-1980s different parameterizations such as the Schiff
formula were commonly used for this purpuse, which are rather inexact
in comparison with modern accurate Monte-Carlo calculations. Discussion is
given in, e.g., [E. Bramanis et al., Nucl. Instr. Meth. 100, 59
(1972)] and the reffering works.

However, we do not think that it is justified to include this
discussion in the present paper, since the cross sections are only
mentioned once.

> Lines 52-54: the informations about the match between experimental
> data points multiplied by a scaling factor 1.2 when slightly shifted
> by 0.15 MeV towards higher energies should be written also on the
> Figure 3 or in the label or in the legenda. In the legenda I would put
> “combined model”.
> Lines 10-12 second column: it should be mentioned the amount of the
> errors of the evaluation reported in Figs 4 and 5, and also to
> describe them in the corresponding captions.

Information added in the figures and captions. 

> References - page 8
> 
> [5] at the end of the reference for TALYS code add the web page www.talys.eu
> [6] web site for the GNASH code
> [23] see if there is an other reference for the microtron except the
> proceeding mentioned
> [31] check if there is a new reference a part the PhD thesis from 1972
> [39] the correct reference is EPJA 50, 114 (2014)  => [114 instead of 1]

Fixed where possible.

> Few Typos
> Line 26 page 4: uncorrelated instead of uncorellated
> Line 29 page 4: correlation instead of correllation
> Line 38 page 4: strength instead of strenth 
> Line 5 page 6: exaggerated instead of exagerrated

Fixed.