Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

see attached file, careful editing of the english is required before a full review can be made. Look at some papers by native english-speakers, e.g. Australians to find the right words.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Professor:

Thank you very much for your detailed modification comments and suggestions. According to your suggestion, I have made detailed revisions on this paper.Please refer to the attachment I uploaded for the modification.

Best wishes for you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Word file in attached

best regards

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Professor:

Thank you very much for your detailed modification comments and suggestions. According to your suggestion, I have made detailed revisions on this paper.Please refer to the attachment I uploaded for the modification.

Best wishes for you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Review of

SIMS Zircon U-Pb Ages and O isotope of the Gabbro in 2 Laguoco Ophiolite of Western Shiquanhe-Yonzhu Suture Zone 3 and Their Geological Significance

I have returned the ms after reviewing the first few pages as I felt that the text was not sufficiently clear. I note that in the revision several of my minor suggestions have been accepted but some major points were not changed. Examples:

Line 28:

age and error need to have the same number of digits: e.g. 187.x +/- 0.5 Ma and 188.5 +/- 2.y    not changed

Line 41-43:

If diamond was not found in the present study, why mention it?                   not changed

Fig 1:

The colours of the legend do not match those in the map, also they are not sufficiently distinct to identify the units, light blue colour and blue colour are not explained, the colour for ophiolites is distinct from legend and map and the colours of the Lhasa and Songpan terranes are not sufficiently distinct to allow certain identification.                                                                                     not changed

Fig. 2:

What is the „N“ signature in places of the granite?

Lines 158-165:

The description of the chemical procedures is still insufficient – see remarks in initial review. Also: you should provide references to moe detailed descriptions.

 

The authors are strongly advised to use the checking devices of WORD (grammar and spelling). They are also strongly advised to take some time to reflect on comments and on their own writing, i.e. look up whether what you describe is really seen in the figures, are all symbols explained etc.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Professor,

Thanks very much for your careful revision.

I have checked all your remarks in your PDF version, and the changes have been made in the corresponding remark, please see the final version.

Many thanks.

Yong

Author Response File: Author Response.docx