Active Tectonics Assessment Using Geomorphic and Drainage Indices in the Sertengshan, Hetao Basin, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, you can find attached my annotated pdf.

I think the manuscript is well written and worthy of publication after very minor revisions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

A 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

- The Introduction section should address the problem, but not with a "previous works" format, detailing  the findings of each author, but rather grouping them into thematic units.

- Too many geographic names do not contribute to the clarity of the paper. I suggest to "sacrify" some of them in order for the reader to make the paper and its statements more comprehensible

- There is some key information missing, especially concerning geology. There is a very detailed description in the text, but no geological map (including lithology and faults) is presented. This is crucial for understanding and interpreting the geomorphic features described in the paper.

- In the same way, the interpretation needs a sketch indicating the main features that are described in the text. In my opinion, much of the text in the Discussion section, but also in others, could be avoided if a good sketch showing the main ideas was presented. I strongly suggest the authors to do it.

- In the same way, many descriptions about the "turning point" of the fault, migration of activity, etc.... are not easy to understand, and in some cases, are repetitve. The authors should express their ideas more clearly.

It must be improved, it is not only a question of style, there are expressions that do not make much sense or difficult to interpret "active paragraphs", "stress extrussion", "rive raid", "the fault continue to move to the east". All this should be treated with more rigor in both terms and meanings.  Please revise also the grammar "more high", etc...

Author Response

Thank you for the valuable advice. The changes are marked in blue font, shading font and annotation. The corrections you suggest are highlighted with green shading and annotations are added.

- The Introduction section should address the problem, but not with a "previous works" format, detailing  the findings of each author, but rather grouping them into thematic units.

Replay: Agreed. Some of the "previous works" is simplified in the Introduction section, and the problems to be solved are emphasized.

- Too many geographic names do not contribute to the clarity of the paper. I suggest to "sacrify" some of them in order for the reader to make the paper and its statements more comprehensible

Replay: Agreed. Some geographic names are removed, and the main geographical names are retained (Introduction section and Figure 1).

- There is some key information missing, especially concerning geology. There is a very detailed description in the text, but no geological map (including lithology and faults) is presented. This is crucial for understanding and interpreting the geomorphic features described in the paper.

Replay: Agreed. The regional background (Figure 1) is supplemented with lithology and fault information. And Figure 4 has been modified to assist in the Discussion section, interpreting the geomorphic features.

- In the same way, the interpretation needs a sketch indicating the main features that are described in the text. In my opinion, much of the text in the Discussion section, but also in others, could be avoided if a good sketch showing the main ideas was presented. I strongly suggest the authors to do it.

Reply: Agreed. To better present the main idea, the description of the Result section and the structure of the Discussion section are modified, and the content of the Discussion part is supplemented, hoping to provide a clear framework of thought for reading and understanding. We do not provide a graph to express ideas this time, perhaps a good structural framework can be used as a good sketch in our understanding.

- In the same way, many descriptions about the "turning point" of the fault, migration of activity, etc.... are not easy to understand, and in some cases, are repetitive. The authors should express their ideas more clearly.

Reply: Agreed. The expression of "turning point" of the fault has changed into "the fault turning point" (line 291-292, 382, 413) and explained in the text (line 41-42, line 310-311), hoping to make it clearly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It must be improved, it is not only a question of style, there are expressions that do not make much sense or difficult to interpret "active paragraphs", "stress extrussion", "rive raid", "the fault continue to move to the east". All this should be treated with more rigor in both terms and meanings.  Please revise also the grammar "more high", etc...

Reply: Agreed. The expressions difficult to understand have been modified. "stress extrussion" changed to "stress accumulations" (line 414), "rive raid" changed to "river capture" (line 367). The expression of “the fault continue to move to the east” has been specified (line 377-380). And the sentience with "more high" has been rectified (line 195-197). And then the English of the manuscript was further polished.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx