Volcanic Landforms and Landscapes of the East Carpathians (Romania) and Their Geoheritage Values

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript includes a very detailed description of volcanic landforms and landscapes, covering issues scattered in many papers published in local journals and in Romanian. I am impressed with the amount of data gathered in the paper. Such review should be definitely published. However, I have some comments that would improve the geoheritage component of the manuscript, mentioned in the title, but described very briefly, in less detail than volcanic landforms. These comments do not impact the conclusions of the paper, I therefore recommend acceptance of the manuscript for publication after minor revision. I am not able to comment on the quality of the English, but the manuscript does not require a substantial editing effort. I include a list (relatively short) of editing issues that should be fixed.

Main comments:

lines 56-61 - The aim of the study is precisely defined (a revision of volcanic landforms and landscapes, and their state of preservation and protection). However, according to the title the geoheritage component is also important. Thus, I suggest to add in the introduction a summary of the current state of research on the geoheritage of the study area. You have cited some relevant papers in the discussion [43, 44, 47, 48], but in my opinion you should also refer to them in the introduction. It would be also interesting to see a summary of the state of the research as compared to adjacent areas; for example, you could refer to studies that relate to other parts of the Carpathian-Pannonian Region (I am not sure if Szepesi et al., 2017 is relevant here). It would give a wider perspective to your research, not limiting in to the volcanic landforms of Romania. What is more, I can see that the manuscript is submitted to special issue named "Geoparks, Geotrails, and Geotourism": this means that the geoheritage component of the paper should definitely be elaborated in more detail.

line 370 (end of chapter 4) - You provide a very detailed description of the study area, but I haven't found a general introduction to the origin of the volcanic provinces under study. It would be very interesting to see a short paragraph in which a geological history and background of the volcanic activity in the area is given, i.e. its connections with the palaeogeographical setting of the Eastern Carpathians during the last 20 Ma. I find this important, because the evolution of volcanism is obviously related to palaeogeographical changes that occurred during the Miocene and later. This, in turn, has clear implications on the study of geoheritage. The palaeogeographical heritage is defined as part of geological heritage (see Bruno et al., 2014 for review); this means that you could potentially suggest some possibilities of the usage of the palaeogeographical component in future conservation, protection and scientific communication efforts. This would be probably the first time that such analysis would be done for the volcanic geoheritage of the Romania. Now you simply refer to "complex geodynamic evolution of this East-European megastructure" in lines 55-56, but I am sure that potential readers not familiar with the study area would welcome such addition to the manuscript.

chapter 7 (the Discussion) - You summarise here the most important features of the areas described in chapters 4-6 and outline the differences. However, everything is here explained in plain text, which overwhelms the reader with a vast number of facts. I suggest adding here, or earlier, somewhere in chapters 4-6, a table or figure that would somehow outline the most important features of areas you describe (for example, a table that summarizes the types of volcanic landforms, types of volcaniv activity, etc.; for such table differences between study areas would be immediately visible). Of course, it would be some kind of repetition, because everything is in the text, but it difficult to follow such complex descriptions (note that the chapters 4-6 span over 18 pages!).

chapter 8 (natural heritage values) - You describe the state of conservation and protection, but the manuscript would benefit from an additional discussion on how do you estimate its quality and efficacy. Are there any issues that can be significantly improved? Do you have some advices for policy makers? How the current situation in the study area can be compared to the conservation of volcanic geoheritage in adjacent areas? Are local communities aware of the potential of volcanic geoheritage?

chapter 8 (natural heritage values) - I would be also very interested to read a paragraph or two covering the possible future uses of the volcanic geoheritage, for example for geotouristic, educational and scientific communication purposes. Is the volcanic geoheritage communicated adequately to tourists? Do you think there are some means of improving the educational infrastructure (thematic itineraries, explanation panels, mobile applications, others)? You could refer to other examples from the Central Europe, where the Oligocene to recent volcanic heritage is used for the geotouristic purposes (for example, see papers of Rapprich et al., 2017 and Migoń & Pijet-Migoń, 2022).

Structure:

subchapter 7.2 - discussion on the erosional features of volcanic landforms - I have a mixed feelings about this section of the manuscript. Of course, it is important do see the erosional imprint on the volcanic landforms in broader scale and find similarities and/or differences between study areas. On the other hand, please note that there are certain sentences that should be placed in the description of landforms, for example the detailed description of the Rotundu volcano (lines 946-949). What is more, similar description of the same volcano is included in lines 307-312. Thus, there are some obvious repetitions in the manuscript. In my opinion, the subchapter 7.2 should be read carefully and descriptions of volcanic features moved to chapters 3-6.

subchapter 7.2.1, lines 903-913 - The discussion on the rate of the erosion is included here, but the same estimations made by Karátson are referenced to much earlier, in lines 660-661. This is another example of repetitions.

subchapter 7.3 - There are no references in the subchapter in which the anthropic imprint on volcanic landforms is discussed. Is this your original interpretation, or are there any earlier sources that could be cited here?

Editing issues:

line 66 - you probably mean "in the north", not "in teh North"

lines 65-67 - several geographical units are mentioned here, but some of them are not shown on the maps (for example, I can't find the Maramureş Mts.; please make sure that all geographical names mentioned in the text are shown in figures)

line 113 - use "volcanism" instead of "volcansim"

line 159 - I could not locate "Laleaua Albă" on figures

line 452 - use "(No. 8 in Figure 6b" instead of "(No. 7 in Figure 6b"

line 493 - use "Pliocene" instead of "Plioceen"

line 598 - it would be probably better to write "(Figs. 10b, 11)" instead of "(Figs. 11, 10b)"

line 711 - you probably mean "diverse", not "divers"

line 831 - use "individually" instead of "individualyy"

line 1132 - the volcanic areas named here are not illustrated in any map

lines 1200-1203 - it would be reasonable to add here a reference to published material from which the numbers regarding the Natura 2000 network sites are cited

line 1308 - use "and" instead of "and and"

line 1428 - "construction of" instead of "constructionof"

Figure 6 - the legend - Both maps (a and b) utilise numbers for showing some features, but in the legend it is not immediately clear, to which map the individual number should be referred to. It would help if "(a)" and "(b)" would be added before the names of the maps, for example " (a) Legend of the facies sketch map".

References:

Bruno, D. E., Crowley, B. E., Gutak, J. M., Moroni, A., Nazarenko, O. V., Oheim, K. B., ... & Zorina, S. O. (2014). Paleogeography as geological heritage: Developing geosite classification. Earth-Science Reviews, 138, 300-312.

Migoń, P., & Pijet-Migoń, E. (2022). Exploring Causal Relationships for Geoheritage Interpretation—Variable Effects of Cenozoic Volcanism in Central European Sedimentary Tablelands. Geoheritage, 14(1), 1-20.

Rapprich, V., Lisec, M., Fiferna, P., & Závada, P. (2017). Application of modern technologies in popularization of the Czech volcanic geoheritage. Geoheritage, 9(3), 413-420.

Szepesi, J., Harangi, S., Ésik, Z., Novák, T. J., Lukács, R., & Soós, I. (2017). Volcanic geoheritage and geotourism perspectives in Hungary: a case of an UNESCO world heritage site, Tokaj wine region historic cultural landscape, Hungary. Geoheritage, 9(3), 329-349.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript includes a very detailed description of volcanic landforms and landscapes, covering issues scattered in many papers published in local journals and in Romanian. I am impressed with the amount of data gathered in the paper. Such review should be definitely published. However, I have some comments that would improve the geoheritage component of the manuscript, mentioned in the title, but described very briefly, in less detail than volcanic landforms. These comments do not impact the conclusions of the paper, I therefore recommend acceptance of the manuscript for publication after minor revision. I am not able to comment on the quality of the English, but the manuscript does not require a substantial editing effort. I include a list (relatively short) of editing issues that should be fixed.

Reply: Thank you for these general positive comments

Main comments:

lines 56-61 - The aim of the study is precisely defined (a revision of volcanic landforms and landscapes, and their state of preservation and protection). However, according to the title the geoheritage component is also important. Thus, I suggest to add in the introduction a summary of the current state of research on the geoheritage of the study area. You have cited some relevant papers in the discussion [43, 44, 47, 48], but in my opinion you should also refer to them in the introduction. It would be also interesting to see a summary of the state of the research as compared to adjacent areas; for example, you could refer to studies that relate to other parts of the Carpathian-Pannonian Region (I am not sure if Szepesi et al., 2017 is relevant here). It would give a wider perspective to your research, not limiting in to the volcanic landforms of Romania. What is more, I can see that the manuscript is submitted to special issue named "Geoparks, Geotrails, and Geotourism": this means that the geoheritage component of the paper should definitely be elaborated in more detail.

Reply: this issue was also addressed by the Academic Editor of the manuscript. We preferred to introduce in the Introduction chapter a sentence according to her suggestion.

On the other hand, we extended chapter 8 by splitting it in two subchapters 8.1. and 8.2. in which we introduced more information of geoheritage relevance, including those related to geopraks, geotrails and geotourism as the other Reviewers also suggested. In this way we elaborated in more detail the geoheritage component of the paper according to your welcome suggestion.

 line 370 (end of chapter 4) - You provide a very detailed description of the study area, but I haven't found a general introduction to the origin of the volcanic provinces under study. It would be very interesting to see a short paragraph in which a geological history and background of the volcanic activity in the area is given, i.e. its connections with the palaeogeographical setting of the Eastern Carpathians during the last 20 Ma. I find this important, because the evolution of volcanism is obviously related to palaeogeographical changes that occurred during the Miocene and later. This, in turn, has clear implications on the study of geoheritage. The palaeogeographical heritage is defined as part of geological heritage (see Bruno et al., 2014 for review); this means that you could potentially suggest some possibilities of the usage of the palaeogeographical component in future conservation, protection and scientific communication efforts. This would be probably the first time that such analysis would be done for the volcanic geoheritage of the Romania. Now you simply refer to "complex geodynamic evolution of this East-European megastructure" in lines 55-56, but I am sure that potential readers not familiar with the study area would welcome such addition to the manuscript.

Reply: we think you are right. But, introducing a new paragraph (including the paleogeographic aspect) in the chapter dealing with the general features of the region would lengthen the already very long text, a problem to be solved (in the sense of shortening) according to the claims of the other two reviewers. However, we introduced an extension of this sentence to make the "complex geodynamic evolution of this East-European megastructure" a bit more specific and understandable.

chapter 7 (the Discussion) - You summarise here the most important features of the areas described in chapters 4-6 and outline the differences. However, everything is here explained in plain text, which overwhelms the reader with a vast number of facts. I suggest adding here, or earlier, somewhere in chapters 4-6, a table or figure that would somehow outline the most important features of areas you describe (for example, a table that summarizes the types of volcanic landforms, types of volcanic activity, etc.; for such table differences between study areas would be immediately visible). Of course, it would be some kind of repetition, because everything is in the text, but it difficult to follow such complex descriptions (note that the chapters 4-6 span over 18 pages!).

Reply: Yes, good point. Thank you. This is in the sense of shortening the text (table summarizing features instead of plain text), and consonant with the other reviewer’s claims.

chapter 8 (natural heritage values) - You describe the state of conservation and protection, but the manuscript would benefit from an additional discussion on how do you estimate its quality and efficacy. Are there any issues that can be significantly improved? Do you have some advices for policy makers? How the current situation in the study area can be compared to the conservation of volcanic geoheritage in adjacent areas? Are local communities aware of the potential of volcanic geoheritage?

Reply: Yes, we completed this section with the issues you suggested.

chapter 8 (natural heritage values) - I would be also very interested to read a paragraph or two covering the possible future uses of the volcanic geoheritage, for example for geotouristic, educational and scientific communication purposes. Is the volcanic geoheritage communicated adequately to tourists? Do you think there are some means of improving the educational infrastructure (thematic itineraries, explanation panels, mobile applications, others)? You could refer to other examples from the Central Europe, where the Oligocene to recent volcanic heritage is used for the geotouristic purposes (for example, see papers of Rapprich et al., 2017 and Migoń & Pijet-Migoń, 2022).

Reply: Yes, see our reply to the above comments.

Structure:

subchapter 7.2 - discussion on the erosional features of volcanic landforms - I have a mixed feelings about this section of the manuscript. Of course, it is important do see the erosional imprint on the volcanic landforms in broader scale and find similarities and/or differences between study areas. On the other hand, please note that there are certain sentences that should be placed in the description of landforms, for example the detailed description of the Rotundu volcano (lines 946-949). What is more, similar description of the same volcano is included in lines 307-312. Thus, there are some obvious repetitions in the manuscript. In my opinion, the subchapter 7.2 should be read carefully and descriptions of volcanic features moved to chapters 3-6.

Reply: We have modified the text to avoid the repetitions by introduction of tables and so simplifying the content.

subchapter 7.2.1, lines 903-913 - The discussion on the rate of the erosion is included here, but the same estimations made by Karátson are referenced to much earlier, in lines 660-661. This is another example of repetitions.

Reply: Repetition eliminated

subchapter 7.3 - There are no references in the subchapter in which the anthropic imprint on volcanic landforms is discussed. Is this your original interpretation, or are there any earlier sources that could be cited here?

Reply: Indeed, there is only very few works dealing with this issue. Most of the interpretations are ours. Anthropic imprint on the volcanic landscape in the Călimani caldera is the exception which was described in [43], and it is now referred to.

Editing issues:

line 66 - you probably mean "in the north", not "in the North"

Reply: Done

lines 65-67 - several geographical units are mentioned here, but some of them are not shown on the maps (for example, I can't find the Maramureş Mts.; please make sure that all geographical names mentioned in the text are shown in figures)

Reply: Right. Because the maps would be overcrowded by adding all those names, we preferred to delete them; anyway, they do not add any relevant information to the subject addressed in that paragraph.

line 113 - use "volcanism" instead of "volcansim"

Reply: Done

line 159 - I could not locate "Laleaua Albă" on figures It’s almost impossible to represent in the figure due to their small size (few hundreds of meters only). The same is valid for your observation related to line 1132 (see below)

line 452 - use "(No. 8 in Figure 6b" instead of "(No. 7 in Figure 6b"

Reply: Thank you for this fine observation. Acc. to fig. 6b, Ostoros is No.6. Ivo-Cocoizas is No.7 and Varghis is No.8. We modified the text accordingly.

line 493 - use "Pliocene" instead of "Plioceen"

Reply: Done

line 598 - it would be probably better to write "(Figs. 10b, 11)" instead of "(Figs. 11, 10b)"

Reply: Done

line 711 - you probably mean "diverse", not "divers"

Reply: Done

line 831 - use "individually" instead of "individualyy"

Reply: Done

line 1132 - the volcanic areas named here are not illustrated in any map

Reply: Some of them are visible in map (Figs. 2 and 4), others which are not on the maps were deleted from the text, others do not represent volcanic areas are referred to as figures (e.g., Fig 19 a, b, c).

lines 1200-1203 - it would be reasonable to add here a reference to published material from which the numbers regarding the Natura 2000 network sites are cited

Reply: There are no scientific papers published. There are only various legislative acts in which the Romanian Natura 2000 sites were stated in concordance with EU directives. We do not think such legislative acts should be cited as relevant information for the subject discussed.

line 1308 - use "and" instead of "and and"

Reply: Done

line 1428 - "construction of" instead of "constructionof"

Reply: Done

Figure 6 - the legend - Both maps (a and b) utilise numbers for showing some features, but in the legend it is not immediately clear, to which map the individual number should be referred to. It would help if "(a)" and "(b)" would be added before the names of the maps, for example " (a) Legend of the facies sketch map".

Reply: Done

References:

Bruno, D. E., Crowley, B. E., Gutak, J. M., Moroni, A., Nazarenko, O. V., Oheim, K. B., ... & Zorina, S. O. (2014). Paleogeography as geological heritage: Developing geosite classification. Earth-Science Reviews, 138, 300-312.

Migoń, P., & Pijet-Migoń, E. (2022). Exploring Causal Relationships for Geoheritage Interpretation—Variable Effects of Cenozoic Volcanism in Central European Sedimentary Tablelands. Geoheritage, 14(1), 1-20.

Rapprich, V., Lisec, M., Fiferna, P., & Závada, P. (2017). Application of modern technologies in popularization of the Czech volcanic geoheritage. Geoheritage, 9(3), 413-420.

Szepesi, J., Harangi, S., Ésik, Z., Novák, T. J., Lukács, R., & Soós, I. (2017). Volcanic geoheritage and geotourism perspectives in Hungary: a case of an UNESCO world heritage site, Tokaj wine region historic cultural landscape, Hungary. Geoheritage, 9(3), 329-349.

Reply: Thanks for the suggestion. These latter two papers were cited in Chapter 8.2 and added to the References

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editors and Authors,

 

I have read manuscript with great interest and it made me happy to see the increasing interest on geotourism in the Romanian Carpathians. It seems that the values of the central part of Romania are unique for geotourism. I have provided detailed annotated PDF for all my comments.

 

I think the manuscript would greatly benefit from a organization of chapter Methodology.

 

Due to the content inconsistent with the assumptions of the journal, and a special issue: Geoparks, Geotrails, and Geotourism - Linking Geology, Geoheritage, and Geoeducation

I believe that the article reject requires.

 

Comments to the author

 

General Comments: The authors put a lot of work into the preparation of the manuscript. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it has the character of a long monograph. And I don't know if the journal accepts such works. There is a tip: Large batches of material from chapters 4-6 (18 pages) should be put in the Tables. I propose to create a table of all described volcanoes and to provide in the Table their characteristics: type, size, date of activity, location, etc. to match the existing figures. Chapters 4-6 must be shortened by 50%. These chapters include geology, petrography, rock dating, and even some petrology, the genesis of volcanic activity. This, in my opinion, is not the topic of Land magazine. There should also be a table with the valorization of geological heritage (title problem). Two tables are the minimum variant.

 

In my opinion, the article is definitely too long, and also many of the photographs used have little cognitive value. A description of the valorization methods used would give a chance to discover what the authors did and what they learned from other articles. It's hard to separate at the moment. The article completely lacks a geotourist approach to the volcanic landscape, and this is the title of a special issue.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editors and Authors,

 I have read manuscript with great interest and it made me happy to see the increasing interest on geotourism in the Romanian Carpathians. It seems that the values of the central part of Romania are unique for geotourism. I have provided detailed annotated PDF for all my comments.

 I think the manuscript would greatly benefit from a organization of chapter Methodology.

Reply: In our opinion, this paper, rather of Review type, does not need a Methodology chapter. We may add to the title: A review  … if the Academic Editor also agrees.

 Due to the content inconsistent with the assumptions of the journal, and a special issue: Geoparks, Geotrails, and Geotourism - Linking Geology, Geoheritage, and Geoeducation

Reply: We tried to enhance the content of the manuscript by adding information and comments of geoheritage relevance (including geotourism) in order to meet, to a higher extent, the specific theme of the special issue. We actually enhanced the Geoheritage chapter by splitting it in two subchapters, the second one explicitly entitled “Geopraks, geotrails, geotourism”.

I believe that the article reject requires.

Reply: The other two reviewers had a different opinion. Anyway, we enhanced the manuscript taking into account your, and the two other reviewer’s, comments and advices of improvement.

 Comments to the author

 General Comments: The authors put a lot of work into the preparation of the manuscript. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it has the character of a long monograph. And I don't know if the journal accepts such works. There is a tip: Large batches of material from chapters 4-6 (18 pages) should be put in the Tables. I propose to create a table of all described volcanoes and to provide in the Table their characteristics: type, size, date of activity, location, etc. to match the existing figures.

Reply: Yes, we introduced Tables and eliminated plain texts.

Chapters 4-6 must be shortened by 50%. These chapters include geology, petrography, rock dating, and even some petrology, the genesis of volcanic activity. This, in my opinion, is not the topic of Land magazine. There should also be a table with the valorization of geological heritage (title problem). Two tables are the minimum variant.

Reply: Yes, good point, thanks. This is a claim also from the other reviewers. Therefore, we introduced 3 Tables to summarize features instead of describing them in (boring) plain wording.

 In my opinion, the article is definitely too long,

Reply: Yes, the article is very long indeed, but we shortened it by inserting tables. On the other hand, other reviewers claimed to introduce more paragraphs in the text. We tried to reconcile these two contradictory claims.

and also many of the photographs used have little cognitive value.

Reply: The photographs illustrate part of the features described in the text, so they have more an illustrative than a stand-alone “cognitive value”, as usual in works presenting natural aspects of the world. As so, we think they are not unnecessary.

A description of the valorization methods used would give a chance to discover what the authors did and what they learned from other articles. It's hard to separate at the moment.

Reply: Information originating from previously published articles are correctly referred to, we think.

The article completely lacks a geotourist approach to the volcanic landscape, and this is the title of a special issue.

Reply: Yes, this is right. In chapter 8 we introduced a couple of sentences addressing geotourism issues, besides Geoparks and geotrails issues, in the new subchapter 8.1 explicitly entitled Geoparks, geotrails, geotourism.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I've examined your manuscript with big pleasure. It is very informative and rather comprehensive. Indeed, the broad research community will be interested. However, some substantial improvements are necessary to make this manuscript as well as it really deserves to be. I hope my recommendations will help in achieving this task.

• Introduction: you have to start with telling about more general issues, i.e., the volcanic landscapes of the world, the urgency of their studies, and the related geoheritage. Various literature sources should be cited there.
• Introduction: if the aim is "reviewing", this paper should be labeled as Review. If you choose the Article type, your objective should differ from reviewing. To me, this is a typical Review!
• Section 2: this should be extended and supported with more literature. May be to add a scheme of tectonic evolution and composite lithostratigraphic chart?
• Section 3 can be merged with the Section 2.
• Figure 1: what is the source?
• Where is the section "Materials and Methods"? If even this is a review, your data and the manner of their treatment should be explained. At least. the readers need to learn about the classification of volcanic landforms and landscapes. There should also be a detailed map of the study territory showing all considered areas and/or localities.
• Results: it's great that you indicate the age for each feature. I understand this is the age of the rocks, yes? And what is the approximate age of the landforms themselves?
• Page 18: is this classification applicable to the other terrains too? Why not to consider them in the methodological section?
• Figure 15: is it permitted to re-use the photos from Google Earth?
• Section 8: why "natural heritage"? The title of the manuscript promises to inform about geoheritage! How systematic is your geoheritage characteristics? – Please, check the articles devoted to geosite assessment – see the works by J. Brilha, L. Kubalikova, D. Ruban, etc. I also encourage you to write more about geotourism (may be in a special subsection). Romania and adjacent countries have great experience with geoparks (global and national) – what about their relevance to volcanic geoheritage?
• Section 8 needs a new subsection focused on comparison of your findings with what has been written by the others about the other volcanic domains of the world. Some conceptualization is strongly desirable. There should be citations to various literature sources and conceptual drawings/tables.
• Certain language polishing is required.

Author Response

Dear Authors,

I've examined your manuscript with big pleasure. It is very informative and rather comprehensive. Indeed, the broad research community will be interested.

Reply: Thanks for the positive remarks.

However, some substantial improvements are necessary to make this manuscript as well as it really deserves to be. I hope my recommendations will help in achieving this task.

Introduction: you have to start with telling about more general issues, i.e., the volcanic landscapes of the world, the urgency of their studies, and the related geoheritage. Various literature sources should be cited there.

Reply: We enhanced a bit the Introduction with a sentence the Academic Editor suggested. However, a more extensive introductory discussion “telling about more general issues”, in particular to emphasise “the urgency” of studying geoheritage, seems to us too complicate, and not really necessary, in the context of this article. Moreover, introducing “various literature sources” here, will need a complete re-organization of the references both in the text   and at the end of the paper.

Introduction: if the aim is "reviewing", this paper should be labeled as Review. If you choose the Article type, your objective should differ from reviewing. To me, this is a typical Review!

REply: Yes! We may add to the title: A review … if the Academic Editor also agrees.

Section 2: this should be extended and supported with more literature. May be to add a scheme of tectonic evolution and composite lithostratigraphic chart?

Reply: The article is already too long as the other reviewers pointed out, and we agree with this. Extending the text with the suggested issues will lengthen even more the paper.

Section 3 can be merged with the Section 2.

Reply: According to the suggestion of one of the other Reviewers, who made practically the same observation, we merged information from the two sections, but we did not merge the two sections totally into one.

Figure 1: what is the source?

Rply: Yes, we introduced the source of the maps in the figure caption

Where is the section "Materials and Methods"? If even this is a review, your data and the manner of their treatment should be explained. At least. the readers need to learn about the classification of volcanic landforms and landscapes. There should also be a detailed map of the study territory showing all considered areas and/or localities.

Reply: In our opinion, this paper, rather of Review type (as suggested by yourself), does not need a “Materials and Methods” chapter.

Results: it's great that you indicate the age for each feature. I understand this is the age of the rocks, yes? And what is the approximate age of the landforms themselves?

Reply: Yes, the ages referred to are the radiometric ages of the volcanic rocks as determined in specialized laboratories (references indicated). The ages of the landforms are, of course, younger, but they cannot be (or, better said: were not) determined by radiometric dating methods.

Page 18: is this classification applicable to the other terrains too? Why not to consider them in the methodological section?

Reply: As we argued above, no methodological section is needed in this review type article.

Figure 15: is it permitted to re-use the photos from Google Earth?

Reply: Yes, we saw similar figures in published articles without a specific mention related to the copyright from Google Earth as a necessary prerequisite.

Section 8: why "natural heritage"? The title of the manuscript promises to inform about geoheritage! How systematic is your geoheritage characteristics? – Please, check the articles devoted to geosite assessment – see the works by J. Brilha, L. Kubalikova, D. Ruban, etc. I also encourage you to write more about geotourism (may be in a special subsection). Romania and adjacent countries have great experience with geoparks (global and national) – what about their relevance to volcanic geoheritage?

Reply 1: Yes, you are right. Thanks. We changed “natural heritage” with “geoheritage” in the text.

Reply 2: Yes, again, we enhanced Chapter 8 with these aspects, geotourism included.

Section 8 needs a new subsection focused on comparison of your findings with what has been written by the others about the other volcanic domains of the world. Some conceptualization is strongly desirable. There should be citations to various literature sources and conceptual drawings/tables.

Reply: As mentioned above, Chapter 8 was enhanced and subsections added. However, we did not discuss these aspects in a global context, rather we prefer a regional (i.e., Central/Eastern European) context. We would avoid conceptualization by ourselves, but citations are included. As recommended by the other Reviewers, we introduced a Table summarizing the  major relevant features of the sites in the study area with geoheritage relevance.

Certain language polishing is required.

Reply: Done

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 

Dear Editors and Authors,

 

This is my reworking of this manuscript. Unfortunately, the authors basically did not respond to my comments. This applies even to such basic considerations for an engineer as placing a scale, a north direction or even a country outline or place names (Fig.1, 4, 6). They quite arrogantly think that Bucharest and Romania are known to the reader, for example, in China.

I don't understand why they won't take the chance to improve.

Chapters 4-6 only partially provide information on the subject. In fact, only subsections 4.3, 5.3 and 6.3 are relevant. Instead of shortening the text, tables were added, resulting in 43 pages of boring text. It is even difficult to determine whether for a volcanologist the important information "was active 3 Ma ago", the history of volcanic activity, the variability of the chemical chemistry of law. The conclusions stated that the volcanic topography depends on the eruption style, period of activity and others. Nothing like that can be found in these chapters.

Chapter 7 is called Duskusja, but it is not discussed. There are descriptions of the same forms as before, only with the addition of various types of erosion. The Discussion is usually followed by conclusions. But here is the only curiosity of this article. There is probably the only 100% about chapter 8 Geoheritage values ​​(the title of the work Volcanic landforms… and their geoheritage values).

Table 3 uses the geosites indexation categories from Western Australia Geoparks. However, no comment was added as to whether these categories were useful with no changes. Despite the different importance (international-local), only IUCN categories III and IV were used.

Due to the lack of improvement in key and previously reported problems, I believe that the article is not suitable for printing.

Author Response

Thank you again for your valuable comments. Since you provided those in two different ways: 1) plain Word-edited comments and 2) in pop-up windows in the pdf version of our manuscript. We replied to all your version 1) comments and operated corrections and enhancements according to them. We did the same following the comments and suggestions of the other two Reviewers, plus those of the Academic Editor, and uploaded the revised version. However, we ignored your version 2) comments, corrections and suggestions of improvements. We apologize for this. Becoming aware of this later on, we consulted the pdf version of the manuscript with your pop-up wind accordingly. Because we could not upload a second revised version, we have sent it to Managing Editor Luna Tian asking her to let it know to you. For unknown reason this did not happen, so you remained with the impression that we ignored your comments and suggestions, exactly as you wrote: "I don't understand why they won't take the chance to improve". However, all the documents with both our revised versions went to Academic Editor who acknowledged that and even suggested further improvements what we actually did. So, please consult our 2nd round revised manuscript uploaded which is, hopefully, the final one.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for revisions! Your manuscript is perfect now.

Author Response

Thanks a lot. However we found the manuscript even more perfectible according to the comments of the other reviewers and, in particular, of the Academic Editor.