Review Reports - Thermochronology of the Kalba–Narym Batholith and the Irtysh Shear Zone (Altai Accretion–Collision System): Geodynamic Implications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read the paper by Travin et al. with great interest. The relations between the fault activity and the magma emplacement gives very important constraints in the understanding of the orogens. However, the manuscript is very confusing, too often impossible to read due to the construction of sentences and the convoluted English. Precisely because the geology of the area is very complex, it should be very rigorous in the definition of rock types and geological structures. In the text, the same magmatic suite is called in different ways, and therefore a reader not familiar with this area cannot follow the argumentations.

I find the use of geological terminology inappropriate, which in some cases does not follow the classic definition (strike-slip, gabbroid, mèlange).

The methods, results and discussion chapters need to be rewritten from top to bottom. They are not organized as they should be.

In general, the work is sloppy and lacks attention to figures and details. The figures are barren of writing, so instead of helping to understand the work, they introduce a further degree of confusion. The lack of care for example in citing the figures in the text and in the formatting of the bibliography, even if of secondary importance compared to the serious gaps mentioned above, demonstrate that the work is at too early a stage to be published.

I provide a pdf with FEW comments and suggestions, but it needs to be rewritten from methods on.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It must be check by a English native speaker.

Author Response

Dear colleague, reviewer of our article,

We are sincerely grateful to you for your positive assessment of our article, as well as for your great editorial work on the text.

We have tried to take into account all your edits and comments, and we hope that this time we have managed to significantly streamline the presentation and, with your help, improve the quality of the language.

With respect,

Professor Alexey Travin,

Professor Mikhail Buslov

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “Thermochronology of the Kalba-Narym granitoid batholith and the Irtysh Shear Zone (Altai accretion-collision system): geodynamic implications” by A. Travin et al, submitted to Minerals

The manuscript examined provides a compilation of literature data U/Pb and fission track ages, and provides new 12 Ar/Ar ages of good quality. These data are interpreted in terms of thermochronology of the studied units and their cooling history is derived.

The text is written in reasonable English, though it is sometimes unclear and definitely too wordy and rambling. The figures and tables can definitely be improved.

Overall, this work contributes a set of new Ar/Ar ages of good quality and, combined with the literature data, has a strong potential to be a valuable contribution. However, the writing and organization of the text are rather poor, to the point that the paper needs to be re-written. In order to give the authors more time to do so, I would suggest that the manuscript be rejected but resubmission encouraged.

Below I provide some specific comments about the shortcomings of this manuscript.

The title is a bit misleading: the data and their interpretation have little geodynamic implications; they contribute little that was not already known of the geodynamic context and setting of the Altai accretion-collision system.

The text is much too wordy – it can safely be shortened by about at least a third. It is also somewhat poorly organized: for instance, there is plenty of regional geology information in the Introduction that actually belongs in section 2.

Figure 1 is very difficult to follow:

It is not clear where the main map is situated in the smaller map (top right-hand side of Fig 1a).

There is no continent-scale map – there is no indication where the study area is situated relative to other large-scale geotectonic units in Asia. This is relevant, as other large-scale units are mentioned in the Discussion.

The three-level labeling of the different units is also too difficult to follow (colours or patterns to number to description in the figure caption). There is no reason why the numbers cannot be replaced by the names of the units in the legend (two-level labeling). It is also perfectly possible to label some units directly on the map (e.g., units 1, 2, 3, 4, 17, and 18) – there is plenty of room for the names on the map. The same applies to Fig. 2.

The ages on the map are very small and difficult to read.

Sections 2 and 3 are much too long and detailed – nobody is going to read all that information. I suggest that these sections be shortened by half and simplified a bit.

Figures 3 and 4 serve little purpose and can safely be removed: they provide little pertinent information. The paper is about regional scale tectonics, so what the outcrops actually look like has little significance.

Section 4:

It is unclear how many grains were heated at the same time for each sample. If it is more than one grain (as in the single-grain method), than the approximate number of grains should be provided.

The sentence about the neutron flux gradient (line 395) is unclear and should be rewritten.

The heating method is not specified: is it resistance furnace, or laser beam, or radio frequency furnace?

In figure 5, the Y-axis should be expanded (e.g., 150 to 350 Ma) to make it easier for the reader to appreciate the shape of the spectra.

Section 5.2 Thermochronology should be moved to the Discussion: it is interpretation of the data (both literature-derived and newly obtained).

Section 5.2 is very poorly written and is difficult to follow. As far as I can see, the story is that of rapid thermal equilibration after emplacement within cooler rocks, followed by a rapid exhumation (and not by uplift).

Figure 6 is very poor and should be completely re-drawn:

It should be separated in 4 different figures, one for each unit.

Both axes, temperature and ages, should be the other way round (increasing to the left and to the top), as is common practice.

The symbols corresponding to different dating method and different minerals are impossible to distinguish from each other – they should be made clearly different.

Figure 6b should be removed: it is an interpretation assuming a certain thermal gradient and incorporating both thermal equilibration with the host rocks and cooling by exhumation. In other words, it incorporates too many uncertainties to be of practical use.

The indication that the CAFB is “the largest fold belt in the world” (line 491) is untrue, not supported by any evidence, and irrelevant – it should be omitted.

The purpose of the Discussion is unclear – I have no idea what the main message is. For instance, he second paragraph (lines 498-512) leads to no tangible conclusion and is thus fairly pointless.

There is plenty of repetition from section 5.2, but nothing of any real significance. For instance, what is the point to the sentence on lines 539-542? Or, earlier, of the text on lines 513-518? (Not to say that these statements are not supported by the new data provided or by references).

What is missing, though, is a comparison with other orogens, elsewhere in the world, at approximately the same age – that would have been a really worthwhile effort.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Reasonable, at times unclear, can be improved. I suggest reject, but encourage resubmission, to give them the time to re-write.

Author Response

Dear colleague, reviewer of our article,

We are sincerely grateful to you for your positive assessment of our article, as well as for your great editorial work on the text.

We have tried to revise the article taking into account your edits and structural suggestions.

With respect,

Professor Alexey Travin,

Professor Mikhail Buslov

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript presents thirteen new $^{40}$ Ar/ $^{39}$ Ar ages compared with eleven previously published U/Pb zircon isotope ages, as well as Apatite Fission Track data from various terrains of the Altai Accretion-Collision System (AACS) in Central Asia. This study aims to address the tectonic evolution of the late Paleozoic AACS by reconstructing the thermal history of granitoids within the Kalba-Narym Batholith and their relationship to the Chechek granite-gneiss structure.

The manuscript explores an interesting and important topic that is likely to engage readers of Minerals. To the best of my knowledge, it has not been previously published, though it is important to note that much of the data and interpretations appear to have been presented in earlier works. This overlap can make it challenging to fully evaluate the originality and contribution of the study. To address this, I would recommend a thorough restructuring of the manuscript, as outlined in the detailed comments provided. Additionally, I suggest ensuring the use of standard terminology and reviewing the technical geological English for clarity and accuracy.

The title of the manuscript is reasonably aligned with its content, though it should be noted that the new ages provided are better described as geochronological indicators rather than thermochronological constraints, which typically address the cooling history of the orogen and its structure. While the approach, results, and conclusions are understandable from the abstract, the manuscript's structure would benefit from refinement, particularly in clarifying the connection between the structural data and the age determinations.

The introduction could be improved with a clearer focus, guiding the reader to distinguish what is already known from what remains to be resolved. This would better establish the knowledge gap that the paper seeks to address. Furthermore, the aim of the study should be explicitly articulated as addressing this gap.

Since a significant portion of the material has been published previously, it is important to state explicitly that this manuscript serves as a regional geological review of the structures. The authors should also clarify which findings are new and which confirm previous interpretations.

Specific structural suggestions:

Section 2 (“Tectonic Setting and Geological Framework”) could be reorganized, incorporating material from Section 3 (“Geological Description of the Research Area and the Kalba-Narym Granitoid Batholith”) where appropriate, while only the new data should be retained in Section 4 (Results).
Interpretations should primarily be consolidated within Section 5 (Discussion).
Conclusions should more clearly highlight the novel contributions of the study.

The figures are generally adequate but could be further refined for clarity, with more detailed captions to enhance their interpretability.

Detailed comments on technical points and 65 specific suggestions are provided in the attached PDF file to assist in preparing a revised version of the manuscript. Additionally, random checks of the references indicate that the reference list aligns with citations in the text, with no excessive self-citation observed.

Despite the potential limitations mentioned, which fall outside the immediate scope of this review, I believe the manuscript has the potential to provide a valuable and well-balanced contribution. I recommend revising the manuscript thoroughly to strengthen its overall clarity and coherence before publication in Minerals.

With best regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

many changes changes on official geological time names I refer to the following website https://stratigraphy.org/ICSchart/ChronostratChart2023-09.pdf

Additionally, I suggest ensuring the use of standard terminology and reviewing the technical geological English for clarity and accuracy (e.g., thrusts, shear zones, gentle thrust structures...)

Author Response

Dear colleague, reviewer of our article,

We are sincerely grateful to you for your positive assessment of our article, as well as for your great editorial work on the text.

We have tried to revise the article taking into account your edits and structural suggestions.

With respect,

Professor Alexey Travin,

Professor Mikhail Buslov

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend a major revision of this manuscript (see my suggestions in the attached pdf)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear colleague, reviewer of our article,

We are sincerely grateful to you for your positive assessment of our article, as well as for your editorial work on the text.

With respect,

Professor Alexey Travin,

Professor Mikhail Buslov

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this manuscript, the authors integrate fieldwork, 40Ar/39Ar dating of amphibole, biotite and feldspar of the Kalba-Narym granitoid batholith and the Irtysh Shear Zone, Altai accretion-collision system, in an attempt to reconstruct the thermal history and tectonic evolution. Based on thermochronology, the authors proposed that (1) in the Late Carboniferous–Early Permian (312–289 Ma), within the NE–SW compression, the Irtysh shear zone formed as a gentle thrust structure; (2) melting of the thickened heated crust caused the formation of the Early Permian Kalba–Narym batholith (297–284 Ma); (3) subsequent denudation of the orogen during the Early Triassic (279–229 Ma) formed the Kalba-Narym granitoid batholith and the Irtysh Shear Zone. The manuscript provides some new geochronological data on granitoids of various complexes of the Kalba-Narym batholith in Kalba-Narym terrane, Altai accretion-collision system in Eastern Kazakhstan, however, the first-order interpretations are not reasonable and the presented data are insufficient to discuss the proposed geodynamic evolution. In conclusion, I suggest at least major revisions with re-review.

Here are some major concerns about this manuscript:

1. Since "In recent years, a large volume of geochemical, isotopic, and geochronological data has been obtained using modern methods for magmatic and metamorphic complexes of the Kalba-Narym terrane [17,49,52,54,65 C66](Lines 198-200)", statements in the introduction about the impact of the study is weak. Please address a few strong initial reasons why the authors had to work on this project. What are the remaining issues regarding thermochronology? How does this local study contribute to solving the problem of the tectonic evolution of the Late Paleozoic Altai accretion-collision system (AACS)?

2. The logical relationship of the article needs further clarification, and it is tough to read now, making it difficult for me to understand. For example, the last paragraph of Section 2 (Lines 180-188) should move to Section 1. The paragraph of "The formation age was determined by the U/Pb method using zircon (303 ± 1 and 308 ± 2 Ma, respectively [17]) for two samples of granodiorites (X-1047 and X-1052) located in the southwestern part of the Kurchum massif terrane (Fig. 1a). We determined the 40Ar/39Ar age of biotite at 282 ± 3 and 289 ± 3 Ma, respectively (Tables 1, A1, Figures 1, 5) (Lines 218-221)" should move to Section "5. Results".

3. Although there are two geological maps, the description of the overall tectonic background and characteristics of the study area is not clear enough. For example, "3. Geological description of the research area and the Kalba-Narym granitoid batholith (Line 189)", what's the relationship between the research area and the Kalba-Narym granitoid batholith?

4. Some statements in the text should be consistent, such as whether "Kalgutin granodiorite-granite complex (lines 201-202)", "Kalguty complex (lines 208 and 462)" and "Kalguta complex (line 467 and Table 1) refer to the same geological unit or not.

5. Some sentence expressions in the manuscript do not conform to English grammar, making it difficult to understand. It should be proofread by a native speaker or editorial service.

6. Figure 2: the section should be "A-B". What's the relationship between the "volcanogenic sedimentary rocks of the Rudny Altai terrane (S2-C1)" and "the zone of tectonic melange"? The relationship between the two in the current section looks strange, please provide evidence to verify their relationship.

Specific comment:

Line 3: "Shear Zone"??

Line 13: "strike-slips" should be "strike-slip".

Line 17: "the Irtysh shear zone (ISZ), which are one of the main geological objects"??

Line 33: "AACS" first appears in the main text, its full name should be given.

Line 39: "oceanic uplifts" What's the meaning?

Line 44-46: "The most important episodes in the formation of the accretion collage are considered to be the dextral Late Carboniferous, and then the lateral Late Permian strike-slips of shear terranes." Bad sentence, please rewrite it.

Lines 66-68: "According to [15,17] the Altai region in the Late Paleozoic-Early Mesozoic was a "hot fault system, the formation of which is associated with the interaction of plate and plume tectonic factors." Bad sentence, please rewrite it.

Lines 146-147: "and global tectonic evolution the CAFB in general."??

Line 160: "many km"??

Line 201: "granitoid Kalba-Narym batholith" "Kalba-Narym granitoid batholith" "Kalba-Narym terrane,"

Line 229: "The vast majority of" should change the wording. "Most"

Line 255: "40Ar/39Ar age of biotite (280 2 Ma) and K-feldspar (243 3 Ma) were determined from"??

Line 259: "Apatite tracking dating" should be "Apatite fission track dating".

Line 266: "U/Pb the age of zircon formation is 286 C267 Ma"??

Lines 289-290: "The Surov massif is included in the Early Carboniferous Irtish gabbro complex rocks [78 C79] intrude Middle Devonian sedimentary rocks (Kystav-Kurchum Fms.)." Bad sentence, please rewrite it.

Line 294: "The small bodies gabbro are"??

Line 295: "the Surov gabbro coexist with"??

Line 313: "a diameter of up to the first meters"??

Line 332: What does "crystalline shales" mean?

Line 334: What does "green shales" mean?

Lines 352-356: "Signs of late left-lateral dislocations are also widely manifested along the ISZ. First of all, they often manifest themselves in Z-shaped folds with vertically plunging hinges. The folds are formed in narrow fault zones represented by green shales, mylonites and blastomylonites from the rocks of the Irtysh metamorphic complex of the epidote amphibolite facies of metamorphism." Please provide a piece of evidence.

Line 360: "c-" should be "d-".

Line 369: "11 samples of" should be "Eleven samples of"

Line 406: "5.1.40. Ar/39Ar dating"??

Line 438: "simultaneously with the introduction of the Gabbro Surov massif", what's meaning?

Line 473: "mirolyubov complex" should be "Mirolyubov complex".

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentence expressions in the manuscript do not conform to English grammar, making it difficult to understand. It should be proofread by a native speaker or editorial service.

Author Response

Dear colleague, reviewer of our article,

We are sincerely grateful to you for your positive assessment of our article.

We have tried to take into account all your edits and comments, and we hope that this time we have managed to significantly streamline the presentation.

below we provide feedback on your concerns:

Since "In recent years, a large volume of geochemical, isotopic, and geochronological data has been obtained using modern methods for magmatic and metamorphic complexes of the Kalba-Narym terrane [17,49,52,54,65 C66](Lines 198-200)", statements in the introduction about the impact of the study is weak. Please address a few strong initial reasons why the authors had to work on this project. What are the remaining issues regarding thermochronology? How does this local study contribute to solving the problem of the tectonic evolution of the Late Paleozoic Altai accretion-collision system (AACS)?

Response: In the introduction, we tried to formulate the main research objectives in a more focused manner, based on the possibilities of the thermochronological approach. The stages of AACS formation revealed as a result of reconstructions bring new insights and are a significant contribution to the understanding of its geodynamic evolution.

The logical relationship of the article needs further clarification, and it is tough to read now, making it difficult for me to understand. For example, the last paragraph of Section 2 (Lines 180-188) should move to Section 1. The paragraph of "The formation age was determined by the U/Pb method using zircon (303 ± 1 and 308 ± 2 Ma, respectively [17]) for two samples of granodiorites (X-1047 and X-1052) located in the southwestern part of the Kurchum massif terrane (Fig. 1a). We determined the 40Ar/39Ar age of biotite at 282 ± 3 and 289 ± 3 Ma, respectively (Tables 1, A1, Figures 1, 5) (Lines 218-221)" should move to Section "5. Results".

Response: we have radically reorganized the article according to your wishes. We hope that in its new form it is perceived easier and more convincingly.

Although there are two geological maps, the description of the overall tectonic background and characteristics of the study area is not clear enough. For example, "3. Geological description of the research area and the Kalba-Narym granitoid batholith (Line 189)", what's the relationship between the research area and the Kalba-Narym granitoid batholith?

Response: We tried to give a detailed answer in the text of the article. Firstly, our predecessors believed that the formation of the batholith was directly related to the evolution of the Irtysh shear zone (Lines 70-80). Secondly, it follows from the results of our reconstructions that the formation of the batholith was the result of collision processes that manifested themselves within the research area. Thirdly, based on the linear shape of the Kalba-Narym batholith, elongated along the adjacent satellite from the northeast, we consider a representative section in the Ust-Kamenogorsk area. In the future, we plan to perform a similar reconstruction by making several more transects.

Some statements in the text should be consistent, such as whether "Kalgutin granodiorite-granite complex (lines 201-202)", "Kalguty complex (lines 208 and 462)" and "Kalguta complex (line 467 and Table 1) refer to the same geological unit or not.

Fixed.

Some sentence expressions in the manuscript do not conform to English grammar, making it difficult to understand. It should be proofread by a native speaker or editorial service.

Response: We have made an attempt to improve the quality of the language. We hope that we have succeeded.

Figure 2: the section should be "A-B". What's the relationship between the "volcanogenic sedimentary rocks of the Rudny Altai terrane (S2-C1)" and "the zone of tectonic melange"? The relationship between the two in the current section looks strange, please provide evidence to verify their relationship.

Response: the following explanation has been added to the text (Lines 299-304):

The plunging of the thrust planes is defined as north-eastern. They are crushed into dome-shaped folds. The thrust structure is everywhere disrupted by right-lateral shifts of north-eastern strike, deforming it into Z-shaped folds with amplitudes of up to a few tens of cm. The shear deformations are most fully manifested at the boundary with the Rudny-Altai terrane, where they are represented by a zone of green schists with a thickness of up to many hundreds of meters.

Specific comment:

Line 3: "Shear Zone"??

Response: We hope that we have understood the question correctly. The combination of words “Irtysh shear zone” is stable and has been used by several generations of researchers. So, we just use it, being in the tradition.

Line 13: "strike-slips" should be "strike-slip".

Fixed.

Line 17: "the Irtysh shear zone (ISZ), which are one of the main geological objects"??

this sentence has been corrected

Fixed.

Line 33: "AACS" first appears in the main text, its full name should be given.

Fixed.

Line 39: "oceanic uplifts" What's the meaning?

Response: They were referring to oceanic plateaus.

Fixed.

Fixed. Lines 44-45

Fixed. this text has been changed. Lines 70-80.

Lines 146-147: "and global tectonic evolution the CAFB in general."??

Fixed. Lines 165-167

Line 160: "many km"??

Fixed.

Line 201: "granitoid Kalba-Narym batholith" "Kalba-Narym granitoid batholith" "Kalba-Narym terrane,"

Fixed. we have brought the names of the batholith to uniformity. At the same time, it should be noted, that the batholith and the terrane have the same name.

Line 229: "The vast majority of" should change the wording. "Most"

Fixed.

Line 255: "40Ar/39Ar age of biotite (280 2 Ma) and K-feldspar (243 3 Ma) were determined from"??

Fixed. ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar biotite dating was performed on 11 samples (B-23-146, K-14-16, X-1041, X-1042, X-1044, X-1045, X-1047, X-1052, X-1056, 2463, 2458), whereas feldspar was used only once (sample K-14-19). Sample B-23-146 were instead dated with both biotite and muscovite. Petrological and petrochemical descriptions of the samples are given in the relevant publications (see Table 1). Lines 396-402.

Line 259: "Apatite tracking dating" should be "Apatite fission track dating".

Fixed.

Line 266: "U/Pb the age of zircon formation is 286 C267 Ma"??

Fixed.

Fixed – “Rocks of the early Carboniferous Irtysh gabbro complex, of which the Surov massif is a part [74, 87-88], intrude middle Devonian sedimentary rocks (Kystav-Kurchum and Takyr formations)”. Line 274-276.

Line 294: "The small bodies gabbro are"??

Fixed – “The small bodies of gabbro are most often rootless tectonic sheets or boudin-like bodies among metamorphic rocks” Line 277-278.

Line 295: "the Surov gabbro coexist with"??

Fixed – “the Surov gabbro is adjacent to with gneiss and diatectite of the Chechek metamorphic block …” Line 288.

Line 313: "a diameter of up to the first meters"??

Fixed.

Line 332: What does "crystalline shales" mean?

Fixed – replaced by crystal schists throughout the text

Line 334: What does "green shales" mean?

Fixed – replaced by “green schist” throughout the text

Fixed – added links to publications, where did it come from: “Signs of late left-lateral dislocations are also widely manifested along the ISZ [12, 14, 15]”. Line 364

Line 360: "c-" should be "d-".

Fixed.

Line 369: "11 samples of" should be "Eleven samples of"

Fixed.

Line 406: "5.1.40. Ar/39Ar dating"??

Fixed.

Line 438: "simultaneously with the introduction of the Gabbro Surov massif", what's meaning?

Fixed.

Line 473: "mirolyubov complex" should be "Mirolyubov complex".

Fixed.

Some sentence expressions in the manuscript do not conform to English grammar, making it difficult to understand. It should be proofread by a native speaker or editorial service.

we were iterating on improving the language. We hope that the readability of the text has improved significantly.

With respect,

Professor Alexey Travin,

Professor Mikhail Buslov

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provided a strongly improved version of the manuscript, by integrating most of the comments proposed. I would like to points out few comments:

Figure 1: the location of the study area is missing.

Lines 56-58: I still don't understand this part.

Figure 2: here there is a lot of space that could be used for the legend, in order to avoid to use numbers (that are not present in the sketch map). Picture should self-stand, avoid if possible to use such long list of acronyms and numbers in the captions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It could be improved. I suggest having it proofread by a native English speaker or an agency service.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your appreciation of our work and recommendations for its improvement. Below are our responses to your recommendations.

I would like to points out few comments: Figure 1: the location of the study area is missing. We have added a frame showing the position of the studied area (Fig. 2).

Lines 56-58: I still don't understand this part.

We have expanded on this proposal, and we hope that its meaning has become clearer: A characteristic feature of collisional orogens of the CAFB is the presence of Precambrian microcontinents of the Gondwana group among the units involved in the collision. At the same time, a characteristic feature of accretion orogens of the CAFB is the absence of microcontinents of the Gondwana group among the units involved in the collision.

Figure 2: here there is a lot of space that could be used for the legend, in order to avoid to use numbers (that are not present in the sketch map). Picture should self-stand, avoid if possible to use such long list of acronyms and numbers in the captions.

We have tried to improve the perception of geological information in Fig. 2. The names of the batholith massifs have been removed (except for Sebinsky). The size of the age data has been significantly increased and moved beyond the drawing. Due to the fact that the number of rock types is large (18) and their descriptions are difficult to reduce, it did not seem to us the best option to place them in the remaining free space of the drawing without losing image clarity.

With best regards,
Dr. Alexey Travin
Dr. Mikhail Buslov.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for revising your manuscript, which is now significantly improved. I would like to note that it is not my “wishes”, as you say, but my suggestions and comments that you should follow.

Anyway, the paper is now in a much better shape, even though I would like to see more changes done before I can consider it ready for publication. As I don’t doubt your science, my comments are almost exclusively about organization and clarity. Specifically, as indicated below, I would like you to make an effort to shorten the text significantly – it is still much too wordy and contains a fair bit of irrelevant information, and re-organize it a bit.

Detailed comments:

Figure 1 is missing positioning within Asia and the continent-scale geodynamic units – a small inset should be added.

Figure 2 should be significantly improved: remove the triple labeling (patterns to numbers to description in the caption) in a way similar to Figure 1; increase the size of the ages – they are difficult to follow, particularly those that are on black background (I see all this on a fairly large computer screen and still have trouble).

In Section 2 Geological framework, please add sub-section titles to make the text easier to follow. Please shorten the text by half – it is much too long right now, has too much irrelevant information (e.g., lines 221-223), is often too detailed (e.g., lines 180-182), and contains a bit of repetition. As an example, how does the information on lines 271-274 contribute to your study? It can be safely omitted.

Section 3: The information in lines 298-379 provides new geological information, based on your own observations (as indicated on lines 298-300): it should be moved to the Results section, together with Figure 5. Figure 4 should be removed: the reader cannot see much as the rocks are too weathered and covered with lichen and vegetation. Table 1 should be moved to Results – it is results (your new data and literature data). I disagree with the “formation temperature” of minerals – in the absolute sense all ages reflect the closure of the respective isotope system, even if it occurs very shortly after the formation of a mineral.

Section 3 should be dedicated uniquely to the description of the methods you used (fieldwork and Ar/Ar geochronology). Please include description of your sampling and sample preparation methods – this is important. Please shorten the Ar/Ar methodology by half – it is much too wordy at present.

Figure 6 is very good now – I would like it to be a bit larger, to make it easier to appreciate the shape of the spectra – it is the most important figure in the paper. What is the purpose of “includes” on this figure – it is clear that the sections of the spectra are based on (or include) that much of the released argon – please make an effort to be succinct.

Please consider adding a cumulated probability diagram, using the ages of all individual steps (see appendix in Alexandre et al, 2004, Tectonics v. 23, doi:10.1029/2003TC001582).

Discussion, section 5.1: the first 5 lines (440-444) should be moved to the Results section (and shortened a lot: what is the point of “We believe that in a cases”? – This is a typical example of unnecessary wordiness.)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Must be improved.

Author Response

please see our responses in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I recently had the opportunity to newly review your paper titled "Thermochronology of the Kalba-Narym batholith and the Irtysh Shear Zone (Altai accretion-collision system): geodynamic implications," and I would like to express my appreciation for your efforts in refining your work. You have made commendable improvements, addressing both major aspects and many finer details. However, despite these revisions, certain issues remain unaddressed. Having carefully read both the replies to the reviewers and the revised manuscript, I have provided additional minor corrections that I believe would further enhance the paper.

There are a few key areas that require further attention:

International Stratigraphic Terminology: While the manuscript demonstrates an awareness of international stratigraphic terminology, some inconsistencies still persist. Many of these were previously highlighted, yet a few have not been fully resolved. Ensuring complete alignment with standard terminology would strengthen the clarity and precision of the paper.
Results Section: The impact of the results could be reinforced by relocating a relevant section from the methods to the results. Given the synthetic nature of this section, emphasizing key findings more clearly within it would improve the overall coherence of the paper.
Discussion: A more detailed and structured discussion would help to better highlight the new data obtained, particularly in terms of fieldwork and geochronology. It would be beneficial to explicitly state the significance of these findings—clarifying which aspects remain debated, which gaps in knowledge they address, and how they contribute to the broader understanding of the Altai accretion-collision system and the specific areas under investigation.
Conclusions: The conclusion section would be more effective if it explicitly recalled the central research question and clearly summarized your key contributions. Strengthening this final section would help to underscore the importance of your findings for both local and international audiences.

While these are relatively minor changes, implementing them would significantly enhance the manuscript’s clarity, coherence, and impact. In the attached PDF, I have provided detailed annotations, including several dozen additional comments and a correction to one of my previous remarks. With these refinements in place, I believe the paper would be ready for publication following a minor revision.

Thank you for your hard work, which has greatly improved your paper. Just a little more effort, and the work will be done!

Best regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see our response in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper of Minerals-3353688-peer-review-v2 on the title of "Thermochronology of the Kalba-Narym batholith and the Irtysh Shear Zone (Altai accretion-collision system): geodynamic implications" has been carefully checked. Although the authors have revised the paper following the previous comments, some expression issues need to be further improvement.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences in the text express unclear meanings, making it difficult to understand, such as "It was revealed that in the late Carboniferous–Early Permian (312–289 Ma), during the NE–SW compression, the Irtysh shear zone formed as a gently-dipping thrust system into which gabbro of the Surov massif intruded (lines 20-22).", and : "The largest among them are Zharma, Chara, Irtysh, Northeastern and others (lines 67-68)." etc.

Line 28: "before the early Triassic (280-229 Ma)." Please verify the age range.

Line 50: "accretionary orogenes", "orogenes" ??

Line 66: "Several large fault" should be "Several large faults".

Line 113: "Fission track" should be "fission track".

What does the abbreviation 'FST (Table 1)' mean?

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you so much for your time and assistance in improving our article.
The paper of Minerals-3353688-peer-review-v2 on the title of "Thermochronology of the Kalba-Narym batholith and the Irtysh Shear Zone (Altai accretion-collision system): geodynamic implications" has been carefully checked. Although the authors have revised the paper following the previous comments, some expression issues need to be further improvement.

In our opinion, we have completed an equally radical revision of the article, taking into account your recommendations and other reviewers. We hope that in this form the work will cause significantly fewer complaints.
With best regards,
Dr. Alexey Travin
Dr. Mikhail Buslov.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find that the majority of my recommendations have not been followed. Until they are, I will not be in position to recommend acceptance of this submission.

Specific comments:

Remove the double labeling on Figures 2 and 3: the names of the different units must replace the numbers and letters that are next to the boxes in the legend.
Sampling must be much better described - it is very superficial right now.
The text is much too wordy - it must be shortened by half. It is full of repetitive and irrelevant information.

I am disappointed that this revision is not at all an improvement on the previous one.

Regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Must be improved.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your patience, time, and suggestions for improving the quality of the article. Below are our responses to your recommendations.

Сomment 1. Remove the double labeling on Figures 2 and 3: the names of the different units must replace the numbers and letters that are next to the boxes in the legend.

Response 1. We have placed the caption text for geological units in Figures 2 and 3.

Сomment 2. Sampling must be much better described - it is very superficial right now.

Response 2 We have expanded the description of the sampling methodology, focusing on the selection strategy.

Сomment 3. The text is much too wordy - it must be shortened by half. It is full of repetitive and irrelevant information.

Response 3 We have carefully studied the text in order to shorten it. The repetitions were removed where they were noticed, and the detailed description of the Kalba batholith complexes was significantly reduced.

With best regards,
Dr. Alexey Travin
Dr. Mikhail Buslov.