The Manhattan Schist, New York City: Proposed Sedimentary Protolith, Age, Boundaries, and Metamorphic History

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

See my commnets in the attached file.

Best wishes.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Methods and Results sections need to be revised in-depth, as many loose and intermingled ideas do not allow for a clear understanding of what the authors are proposing. The discussion is well structured although it could be improved by adding the scattered parts in the Results and clarifying the Meteoritics subsection. Some conclusions are not adequately supported in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I have found that the manuscript wad improved. But the problem is not enough discribed. Please, formulate it clearlier. Geological characteristic of the area is not good, and it requires rewriting.

My suggestions are in the file.

Best wishes

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work has improved a lot since the first proposal, congratulations for that. My final recommendation is that a minor errata revision be made on your part but only to improve the final presentation.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer #2:

1. "My final recommendation is that a minor errata revision be made on your part but only to improve the final presentation."

Author’s response:

We have carefully checked and re-checked for minor errors and have made changes that will improve the final presentation. Some spelling errors and typos were corrected and in addition we have shortened our figure captions and made a few clarifications in response to your earlier suggestions.  We thank you for your valuable input.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I did not find any corrections done according to my suggestions.

 

Round 4

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, the manuscript  became

better after the corrections. Nevertheless, I recommend you to see broadly at the problem. 

Best wishes.