see the attached file

This manuscript analyzes the morphology of sporadic E (Es) layers over the Asian region using foEs measurements from 21 ground-based ionosonde stations. While the topic is relevant and the dataset has the potential to contribute to regional Es climatology, the main conclusions presented in the manuscript are not sufficiently supported by rigorous analysis. Substantial revisions would be required before the study could be considered for publication. My detailed comments are provided below.

1. Line 112-117. The paragraph does not clearly explain how the raw foEs data were preprocessed. Key information is missing, including a) the altitude range or criteria used to select valid Es, b) how missing data were identified and removed, c) the total volume of raw data and processed data. Without these details, the reproducibility and reliability of the results cannot be evaluated. 

2. Inconsistent use of median vs. mean. The manuscript should justify why the median was chosen instead of the mean or maximum value for characterizing foEs. For example, in Figure 2, the author used "median mean", but it is unclear how it was calculated. In Figure 3, the "annual mean" is used instead of the median. Why do authors need to manually select different metrics?

3. Line 244-245. The manuscript claims that foEs values during low solar activity are stronger than during high solar activity. However, Figure 8 only displays colorbar without specific values, making the conclusion unverifiable. Before drawing such conclusions, quantitative comparisons, such as the average change or spectral changes, must be made.

4. Previous studies have shown that weak foEs (< 3 MHz) are more sensitive to solar cycle modulation (see Figure 6 in Tian et al., 2024. Check https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JH000279). Table 2 in the present manuscript shows correlations between overall foEs and sunspot number, but it does not distinguish between weak and strong foEs. I encourage the authors to examine the correlations between weak/strong foEs and solar activity. Such an analysis would help clarify whether the solar cycle dependence of Es morphology is driven primarily by weak events, strong events, or both.

5. Although the manuscript maps the spatiotemporal distribution of foEs, it provides little discussion of the underlying physical mechanisms. For example, why does the nighttime Es intensity center shift northeastward? Without physical interpretation, the results remain descriptive rather than scientific, limiting the manuscript's contribution to the field.

6. Line 316. One of the main conclusions is that the Es intensity center is located near 30N. However, this conclusion appears to be based solely on the spatial distribution in Figure 2. In the other word, different interpolation methods may lead to different conclusions. To validate this conclusion, satellite observations (e.g., COSMIC-1/2) should be considered. Otherwise, the latitudinal maximum remains uncertain and may be an artifact of the interpolation procedure.