Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Detailed comments are given in pdf file.

I don’t recommend for the publication.

 

I wish to be an anonymous.

The authors have tried to make a use of the aeromagnetic survey to detect and delineate the geological structure. The aim of the work is appreciable for the Integrated System of Geological Mapping. However, I have few concerns and the details are given in the manuscript pdf. file as a comment. The manuscript is written with a casual approach that possess scientific lacunae. The work can be rewritten after incorporation of detailed study. Geological map consisting of lithology, structural data sets, sample location needs to be incorporated if petrography is done. Title do not justify the content and approach. Petrography is very general with no data of sample locations and interpretation of the petrographic studies. Only general observations are mentioned. Detailed petrography needs to be done focusing the evolution of different granitoid (the nomenclature is not used by the authors) vis-à-vis tectonic. Minor and accessory minerals need to be studied to talk about the paragenesis. Figure captions are not elaborated. Results, Discussion and Conclusion need to be described properly. Lots of repetition as in report work. Tables of data must be incorporated. Proper geological field work is missing.

The significance of the present work is not incorporated rather a general advantage of aeromagnetic survey is given. The work does not reflect a proper research work.

If possible, perform Gravity and magnetic survey and correlate with the results of aeromagnetic data to precisely speak about the geological features.

Author Response

 

The authors would like to thank Editor and reviewers for their comments and recommendations that have helped to improve the clarity, readability and academic standing of this paper. Below are detailed responses with extracts showing the way of addressing reviewer's comments.  

 

Reviewer 1

The authors have tried to make a use of the aeromagnetic survey to detect and delineate the geological structure. The aim of the work is appreciable for the Integrated System of Geological Mapping. However, I have few concerns and the details are given in the manuscript pdf. file as a comment. The manuscript is written with a casual approach that possess scientific lacunae. The work can be rewritten after incorporation of detailed study. Geological map consisting of lithology, structural data sets, sample location needs to be incorporated if petrography is done.

Response: Thanks for this comment, all the manuscript sections has been modified and rewritten. Geologic map has been modified with sample locations. In addition, new field description with new field photographs.

Title do not justify the content and approach. Petrography is very general with no data of sample locations and interpretation of the petrographic studies. Only general observations are mentioned. Detailed petrography needs to be done focusing the evolution of different granitoid (the nomenclature is not used by the authors) vis-à-vis tectonic. Minor and accessory minerals need to be studied to talk about the paragenesis.

Response: Title has been modified. Furthermore, variable grain size (fine- to coarse-grained with variable size in mm) of the investigated granitic rocks has been manifested. Sample location has been added in geologic map. However, herein the current study we conduct just petrography (beside aeromagnetic data as essential target) in order to identify variable granitic rocks crop out in the area under investigated. Geochemistry, radioactivity of these rocks have discussed in detail by (Lasheen et al., 2022 (Doi:10.3390/ma15124069).

Figure captions are not elaborated. Results, Discussion and Conclusion need to be described properly. Lots of repetition as in report work. Tables of data must be incorporated. Proper geological field work is missing.

Response: All figure captions as well as discussion and conclusion have been modified. Furthermore, variable grain size (fine- to coarse-grained with variable size in mm) of the investigated granitic.

The significance of the present work is not incorporated rather a general advantage of aeromagnetic survey is given. The work does not reflect a proper research work.

Response: The current work aims to investigate and classify variable Homrit Waggat granitic rocks through petrographical investigation, evaluate the subsurface structure affecting and determine their (rocks) depth using aeromagnetic data as essential target.

If possible, perform Gravity and magnetic survey and correlate with the results of aeromagnetic data to precisely speak about the geological features.

Response: Unfortunately, gravitational survey wasn't performed in this area. The data currently available is aeromagnetic data. At the present time it is difficult to conduct a gravitational survey in this area. Therefore, we relied on the interpretation of aeromagnetic data only.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

You showed results obtained by Euler Deconvolution method. Can you comment on the error estimate of those results?

Author Response

The authors would like to thank Editor and reviewers for their comments and recommendations that have helped to improve the clarity, readability, and academic standing of this paper. Below are detailed responses with extracts showing the way of addressing reviewer's comments.   

Reviewer 2

You showed results obtained by Euler Deconvolution method. Can you comment on the error estimate of those results?

Response: Thanks for this comment, as for the error in the Euler method, it was reduced by making several attempts by using the Oasis montaj program to obtain the best result. The Euler deconvolution process is applied at each solution. The method involves setting an appropriate SI value and using least-squares inversion to solve the equation for an optimum xo ,yo, zo and B. As well, a square window size must be specified which consists of the number of cells in the gridded dataset to use in the inversion at each selected solution location. The window is centered on each of the solution locations. All points in the window are used to solve Euler’s equation for solution depth, inversely weighted by distance from the center of the window.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript deals with the interesting subject of implementation of aeromagnetic data in defining underground geological structures in remote areas. Yet, there are several issues that the authors need to address in order for the manuscript to be accepted.

1. The English language used in the manuscript is very poor, and in many cases the reader cannot follow the authors' arguments.

2. The methodology employed is not well described and the structure needs to be revised. For instance, the authors have performed a petrographical investigation of the rock types of the study area, yet, the data provided are very poor, as they are based only on optical microscopy. Moreover, it is unclear how petrography supports the rest of the data given in the manuscript.

3. Most importantly, the authors need revise the manuscript and provide all necessary information regarding the importance of this study, why it was performed, and what does it offer to geology and science in general. In its current state it can be considered as a paper with limited contribution to the geological community worldwide.

Please see the attached revised version of the manuscript for details.

 

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors would like to thank Editor and reviewers for their comments and recommendations that have helped to improve the clarity, readability, and academic standing of this paper. Below are detailed responses with extracts showing the way of addressing reviewer's comments.  

Reviewer 3

1. English language used in the manuscript is very poor, and in many cases the reader cannot follow the authors' arguments.

Response: The language and comments in the attached pdf have been modified.

what do you mean by "best"? highest rare metal contents?

Response: Thanks for this comment,  exactly, these areas (such as Nuweibi, Homrit Waggat, Abu Dabbab, Abu Diab, Abu Rusheid and Gattar) poses high contents of rare metals such as Nb, Ta, Y, Sn, Zr, REEs and highly radioactive mineralization.

For what purpose? what is the objective of the study? Please provide more details

Response: It has been reported in line 70.

2. The methodology employed is not well described and the structure needs to be revised. For instance, the authors have performed a petrographical investigation of the rock types of the study area, yet the data provided are very poor, as they are based only on optical microscopy. Moreover, it is unclear how petrography supports the rest of the data given in the manuscript. Please provide information regarding the grain size (e.g in mm or μm). The authors should provide more information regarding the importance of the petrographical study.

Response: Petrographic methodology has been manifested. Petrographic investigations reveal that the granitic rocks range from fine- to coarse- grained rocks with variable proportion of mineralogical constitutions (this section 4.1. has been modified). We provided the petrographic examination to identify the varying granitic rocks. Further constraints, petrography, geochemistry, and radioactivity for the area under investigation have been discussed by (Lasheen et al., 2022 (Doi:10.3390/ma15124069).

3. Most importantly, most importantly, the authors need revise the manuscript and provide all necessary information regarding the importance of this study, why it was performed, and what does it offer to geology and science in general. In its current state it can be considered as a paper with limited contribution to the geological community worldwide

Response: The area under investigation represents one of rare metal-bearing granitic rocks in the Arabian Shield. Therefore, to constrain the varying in granitic rocks, structure, and their depth, we conduct a new petrographical examination and airborne magnetic data.

 

All comments in the attached pdf have been done. Great thanks for your effort.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,
Following my review for the manuscript.

The subject of the work is interesting and applied (for exploration etc.) however there is lack of analytical data and many weaknesses in the structure, and in the text writing, and there should be made improvements.

1. First of all it is not clear why these granitoids are interesting. Do they contain REE elements and which is their host rock? There are no geochemical-REE element concentration data data for the granitoids.

2. One major issue is the non-relationship between the chapter regarding the petrographic description and the chapter on the airborne magnetics and their interpretation. What is the susceptibility of the different types of granitoids and how these are reflected on the magnetic maps? There are no susceptibility data for the granitoids.

3. The text generally needs major improvement on language, grammar and scientific style of writing. I observed many mistakes on syntax, repetitions and incorrect use of words (ie. line 44 The best rare metals-bearing granitic rocks...)

4.Both introduction and Geological setting chapters should be rewritten. They are not comprehensive and do not give a clear view.

5. Both thin section images and geological maps are of low resolution and not clear.

6. The structure of some chapters/paragraphs needs to be redefined. i.e in the chapter: Material and Methods there is no description of the methods (software used for the interpretation,  corrections made on the original magnetic data, description of methods ie RTP etc...)

7. Finally there is no interpretation-conclusions of the obtained structural data. What do the results show? What is the structural Regime during the intrusion? Are there any structural measurements (from field) to support the results?

Kind Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised title is improved and more appropriate to the particular study.

The English language and the manuscript in general are largely improved. The data provided by the authors is well supported and the results are now much clearer relative to the first draft.

Yet there are still several scientific issues that need to be addressed, and most importantly the authors need to show the point for performing this research. What is the actual outcome of the research based on their findings? The authors need to add a line or two in both the conclusions and abstract in order to support the importance/significance of their work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The revised title is improved and more appropriate to the study. The English language and the manuscript in general are largely improved. The data provided by the authors is well supported and the results are now much clearer relative to the first draft.

Yet there are still several scientific issues that need to be addressed, and most importantly the authors need to show the point for performing this research. What is the actual outcome of the research based on their findings? The authors need to add a line or two in both the conclusions and abstract in order to support the importance/significance of their work.

Response: Really, Great thanks for your effort and time that helped in improving our manuscript to be in this level. All comments in the attached file have been done. In addition, we added the result and significance of this study in abstract and conclusion.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

there has been much improvement both in the english language, as well as, in the presentation of the results. Still could be added one sentence in the conclusions connecting your results with the regional geological-structural regime. 

Kind regards

Author Response

Author has been much improvement both in the english language, as well as, in the presentation of the results. Still could be added one sentence in the conclusions connecting your results with the regional geological-structural regime. 

Response: Really, Great thanks for your effort and time that helped in improving our manuscript to be in this level. Actually, by using the aeromagnetic data, NW-SE, NNE-SSW- NE-SW and N-S directions are the major tectonic trends, which are consistent with surface structure that are concluded by El Hadek et al., 2016 and Azer et al., 2020. 

 

With my best wishes

Hamdy Awad

Author Response File: Author Response.docx