Prospects of Creating a Geopark in the Ulytau Region of Kazakhstan: Geoheritage and Geotourism Potential

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for resubmitting your manuscript. Unfortunately, there is no clear details on which sections have been revised.However, there are different size fonts used in the paper so these may be revisions.

The paper is highly descriptive and does not build sufficiently on the extensive literature on geoparks and geoheritage.

The assessment is the most problematic part. The way in which the evaluation was done and how the scores were allocated needs to be clearly explained. Was it your expert judgement? How reliable is the process and, if expert judgment, how many people were involved in the scoring?

The actual criteria themselves must be clearly connected to literature so that their relevance to geopark designation is absolutely transparent. Were the criteria only gained from Hose or not? You note that material was consulted in development your approach but you do not cite them for the reader or tie them to specific criteria.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

moderate editing required

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have carefully considered all the remarks and have made the necessary revisions to improve the manuscript. We believe the changes have strengthened the quality of the article, and we are confident that it now meets the standards of the journal.

Please let us know if any further modifications are required.

Sincerely,
[Said Arapovna Nigmatova]

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for carefully replying to my comments. I believe that the manuscript has been improved.

Only one - please adjust the font in the manuscript. 

I wish you the best with your future work!

Kind regards

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your positive feedback and for confirming the improvements in the manuscript. We have now adjusted the font as per your request.

We greatly appreciate your guidance throughout the review process and wish you the best as well.

Kind regards,
[Said Arapovna Nigmatova]

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The manuscript by Nigmatova et al. is a relevant contribution aiming to set the guidelines for the potential development of a UNESCO Global Geopark in the Ulytau Region, Kazakhstan.

Despite its interest, the manuscript has major flaws and needs to be improved before it gets ready for publication. English level is acceptable, but it would be good that it got checked by a native speaker.

Please find my general and line-by-line comments below.

GENERAL COMMENTS

A section of results is lacking. Indeed, tables with scores of the different geological sites appear in the discussion, but they should be part of the results.

Almost all of the figures and tables are not referred to in the text.

Citations in the text do not follow the format of Geosciences, and they should be numbered.

Font size is not always the same throughout the text. This must be fixed.

The discussion section is not actually a discussion, as it offers new information of the geological features in the area. The discussion must deal with the interpretation of the results obtained. I provide a reference below, published in this journal, that follows a similar approach and may be of inspiration to you:

Carrión Mero, P.; Herrera Franco, G.; Briones, J.; Caldevilla, P.; Domínguez-Cuesta, M.J.; Berrezueta, E. Geotourism and Local Development Based on Geological and Mining Sites Utilization, Zaruma-Portovelo, Ecuador. Geosciences 2018, 8, 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences8060205

Conclusion section must be improved. It offers general information and seems more like an introduction. Conclusion section must deal with the most relevant findings of your research.

 

LINE-BY-LINE COMMENTS

Title – In “the” Ulytau Region…

Line 8 - The purpose of the article…

Line 11 – Rewrite: “…makes this area extremely interesting…”

Line 17 – Add “and” : “…, geotourism and sustainable development at the regional level)…”

Line 28 – What do you mean by “objects”? I think a more suitable word should be used.

Line 28 – Geological history?

Line 33 – Replace “tourist” by “tourism”.

Lines 33 – 35 – References should be listed in chronological order.

Line 38 – Replace “The regions subsurface…” by “The region’s subsurface…” or “The subsurface of the region…”.

Line 45 – Replace “its” by “their”.

Figure 1 – Scale and North arrow are needed.

Figure 1. – Names of the localities must be bigger; they are very difficult to see as they are right now.

Line 64 – Replace “objects” by “features”.

Line 68 – Replace "objects" by "features”.

Line 72 – Remove point after “geotourism”.

Lines 72-73 - References should be listed in chronological order.

Line 79 – Replace “are” by “is”.

Line 86 – A comma is lacking after “(IGGP)”.

Line 107 – What is ESG? Please specify.

Line 133 – Rewrite: “…there are unique geological features nearby in need of protection,…”

Lines 146147 – Check font size.                          

Line 156 – Add “and” after “…tourism,…”

 Line 158 – Replace “objects” by “features”.

Line 163 – Remove bold.

Lines 181-182 – I cannot understand the sentence; please rephrase.

Line 182 – Carried out

Line 187 – Replace “sedimentation” by “sedimentary”.

Table 1 – National, regional and local ranks must start with capital letters.

Line 208 – Rewrite: “…,which can be also of tourist interest.”

Line 211 – Do you mean that the Ulytau region is one of such territories with mining activity? Please precise.

Line 220 – The last comma is not needed.

Line 229 – Ridges is written twice.

Line 233 – m of meters in lowercase.

Line 237 – …”of their…” instead of “…of its…”

Line 241 – Do you mean average height?

Line 253 – Which lithology are those red strata?

Line 254 – What do you mean by “absolute height”?

Lines 280 – 282 – Rearrange references in chronological order.

Fig. 2. – The title of the legend must be in English.

Fig. 2. – Please make star in the map bigger so that it can be seen easier.

Fig. 2. – Caption – Delete parenthesis.

Line 325 – Were clearly recorded.

Line 338 – Delete last semicolon.

Line 340 – Lithology of those metamorphosed rocks?

Line 345 – Please write reference from 2021 properly.

Line 350 – Add “and” between “mica” and “mica-plagioclase schists”

Line 350 – Mica? What’s the lithology?

Line 368 – Please cite reference of 2021 properly.

Line 372 – Disagreements? You mean they are separated by discontinuities?

Line 385 – The Middle Subformation “is” composed…

Line 392 – Upper Subformation “is” formed by…

Line 401 - Please cite reference of 2021 properly.

Line 413 – Write meters instead of m.

Line 419 – It seems period must be deleted, as it is the same sentence.

Line 422 – Would not it be dolostones?

Line 423 - Please cite reference of 2021 properly.

Lines 424 – 426 – Please rewrite so that it makes sense.

Line 428 – Do you mean dolostones?

Line 434 – Replace semicolon by period.

Line 437 – Do you mean marked?

Line 444 – Do you mean discontinuity?

Line 445 - Please cite reference of 2021 properly.

Fig. 3 – Please make font bigger.

Fig. 3. – Caption - Please cite reference of 2021 properly.

Lines 471-472 – Please fuse both sentences.

Lines 477 – 479 – Please rephrase.

Line 486 – Do you mean marked?

Line 491 - Please cite reference of 2021 properly.

Line 494 – Same.

Line 511 – Same.

Line 515 – I think “proportion” would fit better than “number” here.

Line 521 – What do you mean by strong?

Line 533 – Please rewrite the sentence.

Line 541 – Replace “in places” by “in some places” or “locally”.

Line 558 - Please cite reference of 2021 properly.

Line 593 – Why “Objects and Discussion”? This section should be named just “Discussion”.

Lines 593 – 613 – This seems to be an introduction. It should not be in the discussion.

Line 621 – Replace “stratum” by “stratiform”.

Line 627 – Write meters, the whole word.

Line 648 – It was discovered by yourselves, or by some other author? In that case, please cite the reference.

Fig. 5 – Label each image as a) or b) and refer to them in the caption accordingly.

Fig. 6. – Please compose the image so that it is continuous, letters are in the same positions and separation between them is the same as well.

Line 671 – This was already said before.

Line 688 – What do you mean by “memorable” here?

Line 688 – What is this table? It lacks a title and a description.

Lines 706-714 – Homogenize font size.

Figure 8 – Label each of the pictures and refer to them properly in the figure caption.

Lines 720-730 – Homogenize font size.

Line 722 – The first of their kind.

Line 729 – What do you mean by backwater? How can it create a microclimate?

Line 734 – “Exhibited” would work better than “installed” here.

Line 735 - The table lacks a title and a description.

Lines 740–744 – This font is bigger than the rest of the text.

Figure 9 – It would be good to add a scale.

Line 749 – Add “its” between “famous” and “manganese”.

Line 752 – Village of Zhezdy or Zhezdy village.            

Line 758 – Zhezde?

Line 760 – Check periods in sentences.

Line 766 – Replace the colon by “consists of” or “is”.

Line 770 – “There are also” instead of “also has”.

Line 772 – Delete the last space.

Figure 10 – Label each of both images and match them with the description in the caption.

Figure 11 – Label each of the images and center the figure.

Line 790 – “Educational” is repeated.

Line 796 – Table is lacking a title and a description.

Lines 847-848 – Rearrange references in geochronological order.

Line 848 – Table is lacking a title and a description.

Figure 13 – Label each of both images and describe accordingly. Check font size is the same throughout the caption.

Line 860 – Table is lacking a title and a description.

Line 864 – Granodiorites of the Karamenda complex.

Lines 868 – 874 – This font size is bigger than the rest of the text.

Figure 16 – Label each of the pictures and describe them briefly in the caption.

Line 894 – Do you mean steep?

Figure 17 – Label each of the pictures and describe them briefly in the caption. Check font size.

Figure 18 – Label each of the pictures and describe them briefly in the caption.

Figure 19 – Label each of the pictures and describe them briefly in the caption.

Line 952 – Table is lacking a title and a description.

Line 958 – Are you citing this manuscript? This is not possible before it is published. Also, it is not necessary at all.

Line 961 – What do you mean by “non-resource-based trend”? Because right afterwards you write that geoparks are based on “rational use of natural resources”.

Line 972 – Add “and”: “…a railway station and good roads…”.

Line 998 – Cite reference properly.

Line 1007 – It is not that 208 Global Geoparks were created in 2024, but 208 were operating/active at the time.

--

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English level is acceptable, but it would be good that it got checked by a native speaker.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments and recommendations regarding our manuscript. We carefully considered all your remarks and have made the necessary revisions. Below is a detailed response to each of your points:

General Comments:

1. Lack of a Results Section:

   • We have added a Results section that now includes tables with scores of the different geological sites. This addition allows readers to better understand the data and the results of our study.

2. References to Figures and Tables:

   • We carefully reviewed the text and added references to all figures and tables that were previously unmentioned. This enhances the coherence of the text and makes it easier for readers to navigate the materials.

3. Citation Format:

   • We corrected the citation format to comply with the requirements of the Geosciences journal. All references are now numbered and properly formatted.

4. Font Size:

   • We standardized the font size throughout the text to ensure consistency and improve readability.

5. Discussion Section:

   • We revised the Discussion section to focus on interpreting the obtained results. We used the reference you suggested as a model for structuring this part of the manuscript.

6. Conclusion:

   • We enhanced the Conclusion section by incorporating the most significant findings of our research. It now clearly reflects the main results and their importance.

Line-by-Line Comments:

• Title: Corrected to "the Ulytau Region" for grammatical accuracy.
• Line 8: Clarified the purpose of the article.
• Line 11: Rewritten for clarity.
• Line 17: Added "and" for proper structure.
• Line 28: Changed "objects" to "features" for greater precision.
• Line 33: Replaced "tourist" with "tourism."
• Line 38: Improved sentence structure for better readability.
• Figure 1: Added scale and north arrow, and enlarged locality names for better visibility.
• Lines 64 and 68: Replaced "objects" with "features."
• Line 107: Specified what ESG means.
• Lines 146-147 and 158: Checked font size for consistency.
• Table 1: Ensured all category names start with capital letters.
• Figure 2: Increased the size of the star on the map for better visibility; removed unnecessary parentheses from the caption.

We have addressed all your line-specific comments, rewritten unclear sentences, and organized the references appropriately.

We hope that the revisions meet your expectations and improve the quality of our manuscript. Should you have any further questions or comments, we would be glad to respond.

Sincerely,
Said Arapovna Nigmatova

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The authors have implemented most of my previous comments and suggestions, and the manuscript is in much better shape now and almost ready to be published. Nevertheless, I would like to point out some minor issues that must be amended:

-         - All of the figures must be checked, specifically Figs. 6 and 19, as labelling (a,b,c…) is wrong.

-         - Table showing the inventory of sites does not have caption and is not numbered. Also, it displays 18 sites, whereas the text above it indicates 17 locations were selected.

-         - Line 978 – Typo in “Conclusion”.

-         - Author contributions and acknowledgements sections should be separated from the Conclusions section, to avoid confusion and improve readability.

-         - Not all the references are cited in the text. Please check this throughout the full manuscript.

--

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your insights and are pleased to inform you that we have carefully considered all your comments and made the necessary revisions. Below, we address each of your points:

1. Figures: We have thoroughly checked all figures, specifically Figs. 6 and 19, and corrected the labeling issues (a, b, c…).
2. Table of Sites: The table showing the inventory of sites has been updated to include a proper caption and numbering. We have also corrected the discrepancy regarding the number of sites listed; it now accurately reflects the 18 locations mentioned.
3. Typo in Conclusion: We have corrected the typo found in line 978 of the "Conclusion" section.
4. Author Contributions and Acknowledgements: We have separated the Author Contributions and Acknowledgements sections from the Conclusions section to enhance clarity and improve readability.
5. References: We have conducted a thorough review of the manuscript to ensure that all references are properly cited in the text.

We believe that these amendments have improved the manuscript further, and we hope it meets your expectations for publication.

Thank you once again for your helpful suggestions.

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 topic is important but the paper needs much more work.

The introduction is far too general and reads more like a promotion.

More background on the geopark concept is needed

The methodology and means by which the evaluation was conducted is not explained, nor how values were derived.

The structure of the paper should be tied into the evaluation in a systematic fashion. As it currently stands the remainder of the paper is very disjointed.

There also needs to be discussion over conservation measures should a part proposal be put forward and the likelihood of this.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English needs to be checked further, especially paragraph structure.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author(s),

Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper entitled PROSPECTS OF CREATING A GEOPARK IN ULYTAU REGION OF KAZAKHSTAN: GEOHERITAGE AND GEOTOURISM POTENTIAL. Very intriguing subject, yet there hasn't been much research done on it. But there is great need for improvement. My recommendations are:

 

 

Abstract

Comment 1

This all seems like long introduction to the Abstract. You need to point out methodology used in the article, findings and implications.

 

Introduction

Comment 2

Lines 28-29 correct the sentence; you need to include this reference ahead of “.”. Also, in citations somewhere you use “.”, somewhere “,” please check the reference guide for the journal.

Comment 3

Lines 30-86 Where are the references? Please be careful. This is a scientific article and you need to cite previous research.

 

Comment 4

After line 86, you should open the topic of importance of creating geoparks, then you should point out similar research in the world, who has been dealing with the same topic what is different in yours. In that way you will point out the necessity of the research. Then it should be followed by the aim and research objectives. This is completely unclear.

 

Comment 5

It would be good to have a separate section to include theoretical background – literature review regarding of topic – geoparks.

 

Materials and Methods

Comment 6

Table title? Source? Please check the journal requirements and author guidelines. Also, did you use some previous research to make this methodology? More information is needed.

 

Comment 7

How it can be now section 1? And 1.1? Please be careful with headings and subheadings.

 

Comment 8

Also, a case study map is necessary.

 

Comment 9

Again, the whole section, no references. Lines 130-225. Same with the next subsection.

 

Comment 10

Then next subsection is named “Objects and discussion” and following “The discussion”. Please be careful with titles and subtitles.

 

Discussion

Comment 11

The discussion does not have any comparison to previous studies. This needs to be improved.

Comment 12

Where is conclusion? Theoretical contributions? Management implications? These segments are missing and necessary.

 

I express my gratitude once more for giving me the chance to read this manuscript. The paper has a lot of potential and addresses an emerging issue in the study, but has serious flaws and adjustments that are very much required. You must use proper citations, use guidelines of the journal, there are problems with titles of headings and subheadings, there is no literature review, barely introduction, no discussion  (comparison to previous studies and other countries), and there is no conclusion at all.  If you make all these changes, I would be willing to review the manuscript again.  

 

I wish you all the best!

Kind regards,

 

Reviewer