This paper presents some very interesting INTEGRAL results on a study of 33 absorbed AGNs but some questions should be answered and some points of the text modified before publication.
In paragraph 3.2  the reflection fraction R is measured for 22 sources with the statistical significance of less than 2 sigma standard deviation. After this the total+reflected continuum is found to be 430 eV with a standard deviation of 564 eV whith a comment of being „somewhat high‰. I would suggest this demands a statement about the uncertainties of the conclusions presented.

R: we added a sentences to stress the possible degeneration between R and Gamma.

A comment about the 3 panels of Fig. 1, which, if possible, should be a bit larger.
Panel 1:  On the vertical axis only one number is given. I suggest a rearrangement of the scale in order to display at least two values to allow comparison for error bars.

R: we agree there is just a number, but the there is the scale in that plot that indicates the trend of the data.

Panel 2: On the horizontal axis we find, as in the text, the ratio F observed [oss rather than the preferable obs](2-10)keV/ F (20-100)keV, not as anticipated in the abstract where it appears F corrected. At first I thought it was just a misspell but more serious doubts arose after reading the extended paper by De Rosa et al. [9]  listed in the references of which the present note is a somewhat shortened version. Either a correction or an explanation seems to be in order here.
In the same figure I count only 5 points above the curves while in the text it is said there are 6. The chances of two points being superimposed seems to be very small. Even if the value obtained from the calculation remains unchanged for sigma I suggest (0.67) instead of (0.670)


R: We agree that the F_corr is a misspell, the correct plot is NH vs F(2-10  keV)/F(20-100 keV) ratio.
In the plot there are six points above the region (one is just above the solid line defined by the best fit values of gamma and Ec).

Panel 3: It is recommended different symbols to be used identifying them either in the caption or in the text.

R: In this plot we reported all the sources in our sample. We do not identify any separation between the IGR and "old" (already known) sources.


Fig. 2 Right panel   2 symbols are present (not 2): open circles and filled triangles. Please put the caption straight.

R: OK