Deciphering the Importance of Mineralogical Changes in the Neoproterozoic Epeiric Seas through the Sedimentary Succession of Tandilia System: A Brief Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract section:

1. differentiate between the aim and key objectives of the study in the abstract section.

2. the abstract section lacks the discussion, conclusion statement and the regional application of the study.

Introduction section:

3. discuss the Neopproterozoic with respect the the life on the Earth.

4. discuss the heterogeneities and characterization of the sedimentary rocks by citing the following literature:

Facies Heterogeneity and Lobe Facies Multiscale Analysis of Deep-Marine Sand-Shale Complexity in the West Crocker Formation of Sabah Basin, NW Borneo. Applied Sciences 11. doi:10.3390/app11125513

A contemporary review of sedimentological and stratigraphic framework of the Late Paleogene deep marine sedimentary successions of West Sabah, North-West Borneo. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia 69, 53-65. doi:10.7186/bgsm69202005

Geological framework section

5. Complex sentence structure. revise the geological framework of the study. Revise the whole section accordingly.

6. Include the geological timescale to show the variation in age of various stratigraphic formations in the figure 1c.

Methodology section

7. include the table for the dataset and samples of the study.

8. describe the details of the sections with thickness of 250m thickness in the table or list of samples.

Results section

9. subsection 4.1: check the format and template of the journal manuscript for the subsection heading, All caps font style should not be used for the subsection heading.

10. Figures 6A and C: The scale of the field images must be highlighted in the image.

Conclusion section:

11. Some of the statements from result and disucssion are repeated in the conclusion section. Revise the conclusion section for review and generalize the key findings in the global prospect.

12. Please find the attached similarity report and try to reduce the similarity in the text accordingly.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank a lot for the suggestions and comments of R1. We incorporate and clarify the most important, that improve the new version. On the other hand, some of his suggestions were considered unnecessary or confusing to be incorporated into this review paper.

Below we include responses.

R1 Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We want to thank a lot the reviewer R1 comments and suggestions. We include responses in green and italics.

 

Abstract section:

1. differentiate between the aim and key objectives of the study in the abstract section. See the new version of the abstract.
2. the abstract section lacks the discussion, conclusion statement and the regional application of the study.

Ok. We include that statement.

Introduction section:

3. discuss the Neopproterozoic with respect the the life on the Earth.

Done.

 discuss the heterogeneities and characterization of the sedimentary rocks by citing the following literature:

Facies Heterogeneity and Lobe Facies Multiscale Analysis of Deep-Marine Sand-Shale Complexity in the West Crocker Formation of Sabah Basin, NW Borneo. Applied Sciences 11. doi:10.3390/app11125513

A contemporary review of sedimentological and stratigraphic framework of the Late Paleogene deep marine sedimentary successions of West Sabah, North-West Borneo. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia 69, 53-65. doi:10.7186/bgsm69202005

We revise this literature and conclude that we can not link them with our contributions or results to the Tandilia System rocks. The main reasons to avoid these references are: 1) the studies include very young up to recent deposits (almost nothing in common with Neoproterozoic) and 2) the authors show results and interpretations from deep marine sedimentary facies (on the contrary we study shallow marine platforms). Therefore, we left them to other purposes to not confuse the readers adding some too distant topics.

Geological framework section

5. Complex sentence structure. revise the geological framework of the study. Revise the whole section accordingly.

Done.

6. Include the geological timescale to show the variation in age of various stratigraphic formations in the figure 1c.

This figure is not a stratigraphic chart, detailed in Fig. 8 as the result of the compiled information for this review paper. Therefore, we see it unnecessary to include it in this fig.

Methodology section

7. include the table for the dataset and samples of the study.

As we mentioned, we have included a summary of the compiled data. This paper is a review, and we believe that repeating unnecessary information is avoidable.

8. describe the details of the sections with thickness of 250m thickness in the table or list of samples.

This section synthesizes the information gathered from all our previous work cited in this paper. We consider it unnecessary to provide a detailed description as requested by R1, as it would be repetitive of our papers before.

Results section

9. subsection 4.1: check the format and template of the journal manuscript for the subsection heading, All caps font style should not be used for the subsection heading.

Done.

10. Figures 6A and C: The scale of the field images must be highlighted in the image.

Done.

Conclusion section:

11. Some of the statements from the result and discussion are repeated in the conclusion section. Revise the conclusion section for review and generalize the key findings in the global prospect.

We agree with this suggestion and modify the contents and redaction of this section.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

      First of all, you need to realize what you want to put in the Abstract and what in the Conclusion. The main result should be stated in the Abstract, that is, why the article was compiled.

   I believe that in the text of the article, after the description of the studied lithostratigraphic units and their inclusion in the sequences, it is enough to use the Sequence I., II. ... and so on. Abbreviations of geographical names of formations make the text confusing.

   If you have chemical and isotopic analyses of at least some continuous profiles, it would be good to supply and interpret them.   Characterize more clearly the changes in sedimentation at the Ediacaran-Cambrian interface and more clearly justify their cause.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text needs small proofreading of the English language. In any case, some sentences should be shortened, thus making the entire text clearer and increasing the comprehensibility of the text.

 

Author Response

We appreciate the revision of R2 and include all the suggestions. Below we include the responses. 

R2 First of all, you need to realize what you want to put in the Abstract and what in the Conclusion. The main result should be stated in the Abstract, that is, why the article was compiled.

We want to thank a lot the reviewer R2 comments and suggestions. We include responses in green and italics.

We agree, and the abstract was substantially modified as well as the conclusion section.

  I believe that in the text of the article, after the description of the studied lithostratigraphic units and their inclusion in the sequences, it is enough to use the Sequence I., II. ... and so on. Abbreviations of geographical names of formations make the text confusing.

We will strive to enhance clarity through some modifications. Nevertheless, you may also consult Figure 8 for assistance.

   If you have chemical and isotopic analyses of at least some continuous profiles, it would be good to supply and interpret them.   Characterize more clearly the changes in sedimentation at the Ediacaran-Cambrian interface and more clearly justify their cause.

That was shown in previous work. Gómez-Peral et al., 2007; 2017; 2018; 2019; 2021; 2023. This work points to a review of the composition and we clarify this along the text. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly improved the manuscript.  However, few suggestions for the better quality are as follows:

1. Exclude the keyword "sedimentary cover".

2. Include the keyword "shallow marine platform ".

3. Include a stat the end of abstract section to relate the research with regional or global correction and applications. 

4. Figure 4 caption should include the full form of abbreviations that are used in the figure. 

5. Table format must be according to the journal format. Check the guidelines and revise the table accordingly. 

 

 

Author Response

The authors have significantly improved the manuscript.  However, few suggestions for the better quality are as follows:

We thanks a lot to R2 for the comments that improve the final version of manuscript.

1. Exclude the keyword "sedimentary cover". Done

2. Include the keyword "shallow marine platform ". Done

3. Include a stat the end of abstract section to relate the research with regional or global correction and applications. Done

4. Figure 4 caption should include the full form of abbreviations that are used in the figure.  Done

5. Table format must be according to the journal format. Check the guidelines and revise the table accordingly.  Done

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “Deciphering the importance of mineralogical changes in the Neoproterozoic Epeiric Seas through the sedimentary succession of the Tandilia System” provides a highly detailed contribution to understanding a major portion of southwestern Gondwana during the Neoproterozoic Era. The objective of the study was to show how mineralogical composition reflected the environmental changes of the era. The analyses were completed using X-ray diffraction, petrography, and SEM to examine the mineralogy from outcrops and an extensive (~276 m) drill core from Buenos Aires Province. Thorough core descriptions further enhanced the stratigraphic interpretations. The mineral compositions were found to be affected by many complex extrabasinal and intrabasinal factors.

General concept comments

I suggest the following considerations to help improve the manuscript’s clarity and importance:

1)      The abstract needs a statement that clarifies the hypothesis, objective, or question that this study addresses. The authors should also include a brief description of their methodology. As written, the abstract is primarily descriptive and should emphasize the broader implications for Gondwana in Neoproterozoic time. As it stands, the abstract is descriptive and focuses on the results.

2)      The introduction contains the key ideas, but the paragraphs are fragmented and distracting without logical organization. It should be rewritten to provide more background information on the previous work that has been done for the Tandilia System and compared with other regional outcrops that are relevant for Neoproterozoic time.

3)      The geological setting should provide more information for SW Gondwana, citing such studies as Philipp et al. (2023). Including a paleogeographic map of South America in relation to Africa would be tremendously helpful such as that from Alessandretti et al. (2016) or Figure 10 from Philipp et al. (2023).

4)      Methodology: please describe the specific preparation of the rock samples or clay samples for XRD either in the text or in a schematic diagram. Did you use the filter peel method (Drever, 1973)?

5)      Results: Does the results begin with section 4 “Depositional sedimentary sequences” or section 5 “Mineralogical attributes?” As written, the results section is long and could benefit from a summary statistics table or chart. For each formation or sequence, several columns would be listed with the average values of illite, chlorite, and mixed-layer smectite. Similarly, the same table or a separate table would contain average values for whole-rock XRD, thereby reducing the text for the descriptions. Finally, the raw data for all of the XRD treatments and plots should be made available in supplementary materials or uploaded to an online open access repository such as Dryad, Figshare, Zenodo, Pangaea, etc. In Argentina, it looks like SEDICI at UNLP could be a good option (https://repositoriosdigitales.mincyt.gob.ar/vufind/Content/repos).

6)      Discussion: this section should be made separate from the conclusions for clarity and ease of finding the conclusions. The conclusions should be an independent section that emphasizes in several bullet points the main findings of the study and implications for future research in the Tandilia System and, more broadly, SW Gondwana. What are the potential impacts of diagenesis on the interpretation of the sequences and formations?

Line-by-line comments:

33-34: can be written as “The Cryogenian-Ediacaran sedimentary cover of the Tandilia System (TS), whose degree of preservation is remarkable compared to other contemporary units, unconformably lies over the Paleoproterozoic Río de La Plata (RPC) crystalline basement.”

38: Should be “…with the most drastic changes linked to…”

40: delete “also”

43-47: this paragraph should be merged with the first paragraph to improve readability.

60: citation/reference needed. “Considered a vital piece in the cratonic assemblage of the SW Gondwana” by whom?

71-73: Unclear as written. The mixed sedimentary succession composes the Villa Mónica, Sierras Bayas, and La Providencia?

Figure 1: see comments on the PDF.

87: replace “supporting of data” by “supporting data”

88-94: sentence is too long. Should the colon in line 90 be replaced by a period?

Figure 2: what is the length of each core box? Please indicate on the figure or in the caption which side is the top and bottom of the core. I assume the upper right corner of each box is the top of the interval, and the lower left corner of the box is the bottom of the interval. Was any core missing? If so, those sections such as in boxes 45-47, 51, and 52 should be labeled as missing section.

Figure 3: see comments on the PDF. Is Abra camino in Figure 1 also “Abras de las Tres Lomas” in Figure 3?

118: raw or calibrated XRD counts and intensities were not found in the article. If possible, please include these spreadsheets of data in the supplementary materials.

122-124: the three treatments should be written as “natural without saturation pre-treatment, glycolated or treated with ethylene glycol-solvation, and heated to 550°C, respectively.” It is unclear to me if the glycolated sample was saturated with Mg. Is the sample heated to 550°C saturated with K, per standard procedure? Is the scan speed also 2 °2θ/min or a slower speed? What is the total number of whole rock samples and clay mineral samples analyzed?

127: Is section 4 a continuation of the geological setting (section 3) or new results described from this study? I see interpretations and references, which suggest that it is part of the geological setting rather than new results from this study.

159 and 163: “wakes” should be “wackes”

169: what is a gruss section? Do you mean grus sand?

204: what is “interdigitated?” Do you mean interbedded or interfingered?

229: the effects of diagenesis on the interpretations should be further elaborated in the discussion. How much of the observation is coeval with deposition instead of a post-deposition diagenetic effect?

233-235: who proposed this? Is this derived from another reference or is from this study? If so, it should clearly be in the discussion section.

242 and 246: are these interpretations attributed to another source, or are these new interpretations resulting from the direct work of this study?

261-263: incomplete sentence.

269: Should this sentence be “Above it, the Loma Negra Fm (Sequence V) is unconformably deposited?”

285-287: again, is this interpretation from another reference or from the authors of this study? If the latter, then it should be in the discussion section.

326: do the authors mean “onshore/offshore?”

332-340: should be clearly placed in results. 336-338 is an interpretation best located in discussion.

379: what were the average proportions of the dominant component type for each formation? It would be more convenient to see the values in the table.

Figure 10: see comments on PDF.

457 and 478: source [12] should not be in results. It is better to move this to the discussion section.

467: is the average mode QmFL from source [12] or from the results of this study? If the latter, please make this format consistently used across all of section 5: “Mineralogical Attributes.”

563: what is MEB analysis?

577: reword to “where dolomite cementation is associated with iron oxides.”

Figure 11: in panel B, the letter “D” is hard to see.

650-652: would this belong better in the discussion section?

805-806: unclear as worded

 

Overall, this study has provided a very interesting and valuable mineralogical dataset for understanding SW Gondwana in the Cryogenian-Ediacaran period. I hope that these comments can further highlight the primary findings of this study for the readership of MDPI Minerals.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language in the manuscript is generally good but is distracting due to the misspellings, typos, and sentence fragments. Please carefully fix these errors throughout the manuscript. I have done my best to identify each instance where I noticed them. 

Author Response

We thank a lot to R1 for his valuable evaluation about the ms. We considered each of his/her comments made in the pdf to reorganize the text, and think his suggestions improve notably the reviewed version.

Below we add point by point responses

• The abstract needs a statement that clarifies the hypothesis, objective, or question that this study addresses. The authors should also include a brief description of their methodology. As written, the abstract is primarily descriptive and should emphasize the broader implications for Gondwana in Neoproterozoic time. As it stands, the abstract is descriptive and focuses on the results.

 

Yes, we agree, and the abstract was substantially modified.

 

• The introduction contains the key ideas, but the paragraphs are fragmented and distracting without logical organization. It should be rewritten to provide more background information on the previous work that has been done for the Tandilia System and compared with other regional outcrops that are relevant for Neoproterozoic time.

 

We appreciate the suggestion; however, this work is mostly a review paper so there is no more information to introduce. We add the cite and fig as asked by R.

 

 

• The geological setting should provide more information for SW Gondwana, citing such studies as Philipp et al. (2023). Including a paleogeographic map of South America in relation to Africa would be tremendously helpful such as that from Alessandretti et al. (2016) or Figure 10 from Philipp et al. (2023).

The bibliography suggested do not have any Cryogenian or Ediacaran reconstruction that can help to indicate paleogeography. We prefer to add the most cited model of Merdith et al 2017 for this time interval.

• Methodology: please describe the specific preparation of the rock samples or clay samples for XRD either in the text or in a schematic diagram. Did you use the filter peel method (Drever, 1973)?

 

Thanks. We clarify this section.

 

• Results: Does the results begin with section 4 “Depositional sedimentary sequences” or section 5 “Mineralogical attributes?” As written, the results section is long and could benefit from a summary statistics table or chart. For each formation or sequence, several columns would be listed with the average values of illite, chlorite, and mixed-layer smectite. Similarly, the same table or a separate table would contain average values for whole-rock XRD, thereby reducing the text for the descriptions. Finally, the raw data for all of the XRD treatments and plots should be made available in supplementary materials or uploaded to an online open access repository such as Dryad, Figshare, Zenodo, Pangaea, etc. In Argentina, it looks like SEDICI at UNLP could be a good option (https://repositoriosdigitales.mincyt.gob.ar/vufind/Content/repos).

 

Ok. Done. Although we prefer to not include detailed information of mineralogy that are available in previous work.

 

• Discussion: this section should be made separate from the conclusions for clarity and ease of finding the conclusions. The conclusions should be an independent section that emphasizes in several bullet points the main findings of the study and implications for future research in the Tandilia System and, more broadly, SW Gondwana. What are the potential impacts of diagenesis on the interpretation of the sequences and formations?

 

Ok. Done.

Line-by-line comments:

33-34: can be written as “The Cryogenian-Ediacaran sedimentary cover of the Tandilia System (TS), whose degree of preservation is remarkable compared to other contemporary units, unconformably lies over the Paleoproterozoic Río de La Plata (RPC) crystalline basement.”

Done

38: Should be “…with the most drastic changes linked to…”

Done

40: delete “also”

Done

43-47: this paragraph should be merged with the first paragraph to improve readability.

Done

 

60: citation/reference needed. “Considered a vital piece in the cratonic assemblage of the SW Gondwana” by whom?

[13-16]

71-73: Unclear as written. The mixed sedimentary succession composes the Villa Mónica, Sierras Bayas, and La Providencia?

clarified

Figure 1: see comments on the PDF.

modified

87: replace “supporting of data” by “supporting data”

ok

88-94: sentence is too long. Should the colon in line 90 be replaced by a period?

This section was modified.

Figure 2: what is the length of each core box? Please indicate on the figure or in the caption which side is the top and bottom of the core. I assume the upper right corner of each box is the top of the interval, and the lower left corner of the box is the bottom of the interval. Was any core missing? If so, those sections such as in boxes 45-47, 51, and 52 should be labeled as missing section.

Clarified

Figure 3: see comments on the PDF. Is Abra camino in Figure 1 also “Abras de las Tres Lomas” in Figure 3?

We did not find any comment on Fig 3

118: raw or calibrated XRD counts and intensities were not found in the article. If possible, please include these spreadsheets of data in the supplementary materials.

Yes, general intensities are showed in Fig. 10

122-124: the three treatments should be written as “natural without saturation pre-treatment, glycolated or treated with ethylene glycol-solvation, and heated to 550°C, respectively.” It is unclear to me if the glycolated sample was saturated with Mg. Is the sample heated to 550°C saturated with K, per standard procedure? Is the scan speed also 2 °2θ/min or a slower speed? What is the total number of whole rock samples and clay mineral samples analyzed?

Ok. Revised. Samples were saturated without Mg and or K. Yes, that the speed as in says in ms.

127: Is section 4 a continuation of the geological setting (section 3) or new results described from this study? I see interpretations and references, which suggest that it is part of the geological setting rather than new results from this study.

Sequences are reorganized in the present review paper based on previous work.

159 and 163: “wakes” should be “wackes”

Yes, we modify each word.

169: what is a gruss section? Do you mean grus sand?

It is used as synonym of saprolite (weathered crystalline rock).

204: what is “interdigitated?” Do you mean interbedded or interfingered?

In this case, better is to use amalgamated.

229: the effects of diagenesis on the interpretations should be further elaborated in the discussion. How much of the observation is coeval with deposition instead of a post-deposition diagenetic effect?

Sorry, but we think this contribution do not need to talk about diagenesis, because this study is oriented to detrital and intrabasinal origin of components and their environmental relationships. Moreover, we think that need to exclude postdepositional components treated in previous works.

233-235: who proposed this? Is this derived from another reference or is from this study? If so, it should clearly be in the discussion section.

Thanks. We clarify and include a discussion for this section.

242 and 246: are these interpretations attributed to another source, or are these new interpretations resulting from the direct work of this study?

Most came from previous work.

261-263: incomplete sentence.

Rewritten.

269: Should this sentence be “Above it, the Loma Negra Fm (Sequence V) is unconformably deposited?”

Ok, rewritten.

285-287: again, is this interpretation from another reference or from the authors of this study? If the latter, then it should be in the discussion section.

Ok, clarified.

326: do the authors mean “onshore/offshore?”

Yes, we clarify and cut redundances.

332-340: should be clearly placed in results. 336-338 is an interpretation best located in discussion.

Modified.

379: what were the average proportions of the dominant component type for each formation? It would be more convenient to see the values in the table.

Figure 10: see comments on PDF.

We did not see a comment on Fig 10

457 and 478: source [12] should not be in results. It is better to move this to the discussion section.

Clarified.

467: is the average mode QmFL from source [12] or from the results of this study? If the latter, please make this format consistently used across all of section 5: “Mineralogical Attributes.”

Done

563: what is MEB analysis?

Sorry, SEM are MEB in Spanish.

577: reword to “where dolomite cementation is associated with iron oxides.”

Sorry, do not understand.

Figure 11: in panel B, the letter “D” is hard to see.

Ok, clarified

650-652: would this belong better in the discussion section?

Modified

805-806: unclear as worded

Clarified.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper by Gómez-Peral et al. is New insight into Deciphering The Importance of Mineralogical Changes in The Neoproterozoic Epeiric Seas Through the Sedimentary Succes- 3 sion of Tandilia System. The sedimentary record of the Tandilia Basin comprises eight deposition sequences deposited during the Neoproterozoic. This work intends to explain how extra- and intra-basinal factors controled changes in main mineral types and their origins clearly affected by the drastic global changes of this era. I think the paper is worth publishing in a scientific review such as Minerals. In my opinion the paper can be accepted only after minor revision. Please see my suggestions below.

 

1.The English language of the article needs to be further improved. It is suggested to find experts whose native language is English to improve it.

2. Figure 1 suggests adding a world map to make it easier for the reader to understand the detailed location of the Tandilia System

3. Figure 2. La Cabañita drill core (299.35-22.35 m deep). Mark the depth of each core box on the map.

4. The six parts of the article suggest that the author separate, the discussion and the conclusion separate will make the article more clear.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No

Author Response

We thank R2 for his/her evaluation about the ims. We considered each  comment for the next version

 

1.The English language of the article needs to be further improved. It is suggested to find experts whose native language is English to improve it.

Revised

2. Figure 1 suggests adding a world map to make it easier for the reader to understand the detailed location of the Tandilia System

Ok

3. Figure 2. La Cabañita drill core (299.35-22.35 m deep). Mark the depth of each core box on the map.

It is not possible to mark depth on the map, only the point of the drill.

4. The six parts of the article suggest that the author separate, the discussion and the conclusion separate will make the article more clear.

Thanks. Done

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kindly find the annotated pdf file for detailed comments. 

Some of the major highlights of the suggestions are:

Abstract section:

1. revise the abstract with key components including significance of the work, problem statement, key objective, methodology used, major results and discussion highlights concluded by a statement. the abstract does not stand alone to show the summary of the research work.

Keywords:

2. too lengthy keyword. revise it as "SW Gondwana assemblage"

Introduction section:

3. Introduction section: Lines 37-40: unclear statement revise it

Geological Framework section:

4. support the literature by referring to the figure and adding its geoscientific significance.

5. include the literature related to the heterogeneities of siliciclastic sedimentary environments: 

Facies Heterogeneity and Lobe Facies Multiscale Analysis of Deep-Marine Sand-Shale Complexity in the West Crocker Formation of Sabah Basin, NW Borneo. Applied Sciences 11. doi:10.3390/app11125513

A contemporary review of sedimentological and stratigraphic framework of the Late Paleogene deep marine sedimentary successions of West Sabah, North-West Borneo. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia 69, 53-65. doi:10.7186/bgsm69202005

6. Figure 1c: add the geological time in million years with the stratigraphic divisions and rock formations.

Methodology section

7. add a table to show the dataset used in this study

Results

8. revise the section heading with the results section and add a subsection for each type of results section for instance depositional sedimentary sequence should be a subsection of the results section

9. Figure 7a: label the scale of the figure as it is not visible what is the length of the scale in the field image.

10. heading 5. Mineralogical attributes: it should be a subsection of the results section.

Discussion section:

11. add a paleogeographic model (Figure/illustration) to show the Gondwana assemblage.

12. The study should be concluded by adding a separate section of conclusion after the discussion section.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank a lot to R3 for his/her valuable evaluation of the ms. We considered each  comment made in the pdf to reorganize the text, and think suggestions improve notably the reviewed version

Some of the major highlights of the suggestions are:

Abstract section:

1. revise the abstract with key components including significance of the work, problem statement, key objective, methodology used, major results and discussion highlights concluded by a statement. the abstract does not stand alone to show the summary of the research work.

Done

Keywords:

2. too lengthy keyword. revise it as "SW Gondwana assemblage"

modified

Introduction section:

3. Introduction section: Lines 37-40: unclear statement revise i

Done

Geological Framework section:

4. support the literature by referring to the figure and adding its geoscientific significance.

Added

5. include the literature related to the heterogeneities of siliciclastic sedimentary environments: 

It was a confusion. We clarify.

Facies Heterogeneity and Lobe Facies Multiscale Analysis of Deep-Marine Sand-Shale Complexity in the West Crocker Formation of Sabah Basin, NW Borneo. Applied Sciences 11. doi:10.3390/app11125513

A contemporary review of sedimentological and stratigraphic framework of the Late Paleogene deep marine sedimentary successions of West Sabah, North-West Borneo. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Malaysia 69, 53-65. doi:10.7186/bgsm69202005

6. Figure 1c: add the geological time in million years with the stratigraphic divisions and rock formations.

Done

Methodology section

7. add a table to show the dataset used in this study

Yes. We include a table with mineral contents of each unit

Results

8. revise the section heading with the results section and add a subsection for each type of results section for instance depositional sedimentary sequence should be a subsection of the results section

Done

9. Figure 7a: label the scale of the figure as it is not visible what is the length of the scale in the field image.

Done, clarified in fig cap

10. heading 5. Mineralogical attributes: it should be a subsection of the results section.

Yes, done

Discussion section:

11. add a paleogeographic model (Figure/illustration) to show the Gondwana assemblage.

Ok. We include it in a new figure (Figure 12)

12. The study should be concluded by adding a separate section of conclusion after the discussion section.

Done

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the paper, “Deciphering the importance of mineralogical changes in the Neoproterozoic epeiric seas through the sedimentary succession of Tandilia System: a brief review” made key improvements to the paper. I apologize that some comments did not appear on the previous PDF, so I have written all comments in the attached Word document Additional revision will help strengthen the paper, because several changes were not adequately addressed in the first revision. The introduction does not sufficiently introduce the broader significance of the work (i.e. implications for potentially studying other basins of these eras), and key concepts used in the Discussion (Shuram excursion, Snowball Earth, magnetostratigraphy) were not introduced. Please introduce the readers more thoroughly to what is already understood about Neoproterozoic environmental change. Because this is a review paper, the introduction should provide an more complete overview of previous work.

The results section is unnecessarily cumbersome and long for readers and should be condensed and presented in a more readable format, and the results should not contain the authors’ new interpretations, which belong in the Discussion section. Some Results paragraphs are very truncated and perhaps would be better presented as a bullet list in the text.

In my attached comments, I attempted to highlight the largest distractions to me as a reader. I hope the authors will carefully consider all suggestions to help make this paper more accessible to understand. Finally, please consider sharing all of the raw XRD data as Excel spreadsheets in supplemental materials. 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have attempted to point out the major grammatical errors that must be corrected. The paper would benefit from a review by someone well-versed in writing this type of paper in English.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review

Revise the title of the manuscript as: "Deciphering The significance of Mineralogical Evolution in The Neoproterozoic Epeiric Seas Through the Sedimentary Succession of Tandilia System".

Add the keyword: "drill cores".

Figure 7e: the scale of the field image is not clear.explain the scale of the field image of the figure caption or add the scale of the field image.

Figure 9: add all the full forms of the abbreviations used for labeling of the figure. And clarify the variation in the mineralogy accordingly.

Figure 12 there should be well correlation between the paleogeographic evolution and the unconformities mentioned in the stratigraphic column.  

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf