Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

At page 6: I see that the manuscript continues with similar English grammatical problem throughout and I have ceased making edits of the text. Reading forward, the science of this manuscript is sound and accurate with well supported conclusions. The illustrations are appropriate and very well done, except for Figure 12, which is hazy. Unfortunately, I must note that this manuscript is not in publishable condition as far as the text's grammar and sentence construction. I recommend the authors consult with a professional English language editor, make the need corrections and resubmit. I am confident that it is ultimately publishable.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 2 Report

This work is more like a review than a scientific article

The structure of the article needs to be changed. It is necessary to highlight the main results that belong to the authors. The sections of the article with new information belonging to the authors must be clearly shown.

There is no “methods” section, it is not enough just to name used software

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Paper is very interesting and it gives detailed insight into the geomorphology of the Cilento coast.

When authors refer to landscape quality, it is recommended to include visual characterisation at least.

As noted in the abstract, sites of Licosa Cape and Ripe Rosse have been taken as reference of this research. So, it would be useful for understanding to present the map so the reader can follow easier. Also, it is recommended to describe them in the section Study area. There are many different toponyms in the manuscript, so it is unclear for reader who is not familiar with an area.

It is recommended to separate Methods in one section.

In the conclusion there is detailed description of Unesco protection (649-652) of the site. It is recommended to shift those information into the introduction.

Landscape block diagrams (Fig 8) are very good for presentation.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for taking the opinion of the reviewer.

Author Response

We thank you for your punctual revision of the manuscript and for the constructive comments that have considerably improved the manuscript.