The authors discuss corrections for errors introduced by the rf pulses during polarization build-up monitoring of experiments typically encountered in dissolution DNP. Depending on the flip angle of the readout pulses, a certain amount of polarization is lost which not only reduces the steady-state polarization to be reached, but also affects the apparent build-up or decay rates.

In the introduction, a clear and easily comprehendible recap of the rate equations for the build-up dynamics is presented, and the basis for the iterative rf pulse correction algorithm is derived. In the beginning of the methods section the other pulse correction methods are presented (from my perspective these could have been already introduced in the preceding section), and the experimental procedure is explained in sufficient detail. The weakest point of the paper, however, is the presentation of the actual results. Particularly the experimental results (but to some degree also the simulation results) are only referred to as presented in the respective figures and tables, but no practically no explanation of the results is given. Here, I would have expected a more extensive presentation in the text, where the reader is guided through the rather large set of data in figs. and tables 2 and 3. From my perspective, a figure should support the presentation of the results in the text, and not be left alone to the reader to perform the interpretation on their own. In the discussion, the authors touch important points which could lead to the observed results or introduce errors, and in the conclusions a relatively short summary is given.

Besides the above general criticism I have another more detailed question about the validity of the rate equation approach. The independence of buildup and decay rates which form the basis of Eq. (1) have been derived for solid effect DNP, where an additional polarization injection pathway is driven by microwave irradiation. Turning off the microwaves would then effectively set k_W to 0, leaving us only relaxation with k_R back to thermal equilibrium. Besides others, Shimon et al. (Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2012, 14, 5729) have shown that under similar conditions, cross effect or thermal mixing may also be active. For these DNP mechanisms, polarization injection and relaxation cannot be separated as the nuclear polarization is always coupled to an electron polarization difference (or spectral gradient). Thus, the relaxation term should be small compared to k_W and turning off microwave irradiation would only modulate A to a value near thermal equilibrium, while k_W is unaffected. How would this affect the herein presented method? Can you make an estimate which DNP mechanism is dominant? From the observed difference in tau_bup and tau_rec, the assumption of having more or less independent injection and relaxation pathways seems obvious, but I am still wondering what cause some admixture of the other DNP mechanism (CE/TM) would have in the analysis.

In conclusion, the manuscript should be of high interest for the magnetic resonance community. It is These points should be addressed before publication. Besides the above-mentioned shortcomings, it is of high scientific value and quality, and should be publishable in MR after minor revision.

Minor remarks: the use of the multiplication sign is inconsistent, and oftentimes spaces after the degree symbol are either missing or repeated.