Ductile Versus Brittle Tectonics in the Anatolian–Aegean–Balkan System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have carefully reviewed your manuscript titled "Ductile versus brittle tectonics in the Anatolian-Aegean-Balkan system", a critical area of the Alpine-Himalayan orogen, which displays Cretaceous to Neogene ductile to brittle tectonic features, the latter being directly related to ongoing seismicity. I appreciate the effort and dedication you have put into your research on this important topic but I have noticed there is still much work to do before considering this paper for publication.

There are several issues which you may wish to solve.

I would like to highlight a few key points from my review:

• Structural Clarity: The manuscript would benefit from clearer delineation of your contributions and findings relative to the existing literature.
• Organizational Issues: The organization of the paper should be revised to include distinct sections such as Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions, with a clearer presentation of the study's aims, methods, results, and implications.
• Methodological Transparency: There is a need for more detailed descriptions of the methods used, including data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
• Figure Quality and Source: Some figures require improvement for clarity, and it is essential to clearly indicate the sources of the data used to create them.
• Language and Presentation: A thorough English review is recommended to enhance the manuscript's readability and ensure clarity of scientific content.

I understand that revising a manuscript can be challenging, but I believe that addressing these points will significantly strengthen your paper. Please consider my comments as constructive feedback aimed at improving the overall quality and impact of your work.

In the attached pdf, I have provided detailed comments and suggestions for improvement in the attached review report. 

Thank you for the opportunity to review your work. I look forward to seeing a revised version that addresses the points raised.

Best regards,

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language and English Review: I recommend a thorough review of the manuscript's language, although there are only very minor grammatical and syntactical issues throughout the ms.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.    Figure 3b，the “EHA” and “WHA” are inverted labeled.

2.    Line 183, there is no “Fig. 3d” in this manuscript, please check and modify.

3.    Some presentations about the figures are not suitable. For example, the size of fonts (EPIRUS, SMM and NAF of Fig. 4; “a”, “b”, “c” of Fig. 6; and the fonts of Fig. 7) are inconsistent and irregularity.

4.    For the “Conclusions”, it should be concise and to the point. But, in this manuscript, the “Conclusions” are so tedious. Even some references and figures are also cited in this part. So, it is suggested that the “Conclusions” be reorganized and should be briefly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for addressing some of the corrections in your manuscript. However, I noticed that the primary concern regarding the paper's structure has not yet been resolved. As it stands, the current organization blends background information, interpretation, and objectives, which may make it challenging for readers to clearly understand the focus and contributions of your work. The objective of the study, for example, is introduced relatively late, which could diminish its impact.

To enhance the clarity and readability of your manuscript, I would kindly suggest considering a more conventional structure, with sections such as Introduction, Geodynamic Background, Seismological Setting, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. This approach would help ensure that the aim of your study is clearly presented in the Introduction and that your findings and contributions are highlighted effectively.

I have attached a PDF file with a few additional minor comments for your consideration. 

Best regards.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I found a few grammatical errors, but I must say, I was primarily focused on the structure of the paper and its content. A thorough English review is recommended for the final version of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript and for

taking the time to address the feedback provided. I appreciate the effort

you have made to incorporate some of the suggested changes. However, after

reviewing the revised manuscript, I noted that the main updates are focused

on the introduction, and the more substantial revisions that were

previously recommended have not been fully addressed. Specifically, my

suggestion to restructure the manuscript has not been implemented. While I

understand that you have already published some related data in books and

other papers, it is important that this manuscript stands on its own within

the context of this journal.

As I cannot request these changes for a third time, I respect your

scientific freedom and leave it to the editors to decide whether this

version is suitable for publication in its current form.

Thank you again for your efforts, and I wish you much success.

Best regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no substantial changes 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx