Whole Rock, Mineral Chemistry during Skarn Mineralization-Case Study from Tongshan Cu-Mo Skarn Profile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to congratulate the authors on their work in this interesting scientific article. However, I believe that a general revision should be considered for its publication. The review of details and editing errors is a field in which the excellent editors at MDPI do a great job, and there is no need to go into depth. I will focus more on the overall development of the article, particularly on the conclusions, after reading this good paper.

The text lacks clarity and conciseness. The sentences are lengthy and convoluted, making it difficult to grasp the main points. Revision suggestion: Simplify the sentence structures and break them down into smaller, more coherent statements.

There is a need for clearer organization and structure. The flow of information is not well-structured, and the transition between ideas is sometimes abrupt. Revision suggestion: Rearrange the paragraphs to present information in a logical order, ensuring a smooth transition between concepts.

The text contains grammatical errors and inconsistencies. Some sentences lack proper subject-verb agreement and use incorrect verb tenses. Revision suggestion: Review the text for grammatical errors and ensure consistent use of verb tenses throughout.

The conclusions section should provide a concise summary of the key findings. It currently includes excessive details that could be more effectively presented in the main body of the paper.

Revision suggestion: Condense the conclusions to highlight the most significant findings and their implications.

The terminology used in the conclusions section is inconsistent. Some terms, such as "endo-skarn" and "extro-skarn," are not commonly used in the field.

Revision suggestion: Replace "endo-skarn" and "extro-skarn" with more widely recognized terms like "inner skarn" and "outer skarn," respectively.

The relationships between Fe3+, Al3+, and REE3+ in garnets are not clearly explained. The statement needs to be clarified to provide a better understanding of the substitution mechanisms.

Revision suggestion: Elaborate on how Fe3+, Al3+, and REE3+ interact in garnets and their implications for the skarn formation process.

The proposed indicators for differentiating between endo-skarn and extro-skarn boundaries need further elaboration. The text should explain the specific criteria and methods used to distinguish between the two.

Revision suggestion: Provide detailed descriptions of the whole-rock chemistry and mineral chemistry indicators proposed for distinguishing endo-skarn and extro-skarn boundaries.

The final paragraph lacks clarity and coherence. It should clearly state the implications of the findings and provide a concise future research direction. Revision suggestion: Clearly summarize the main implications of the research and propose specific areas of future study, such as investigating the variations in skarn formation within different types of magmatic rocks.

Overall, the text demonstrates a solid understanding of skarn formation processes and provides valuable insights. However, revisions are needed to improve clarity, consistency, and conciseness in order to enhance the overall quality and readability of the conclusions section.

Regarding the level of English, the text demonstrates an intermediate to advanced level of English proficiency. However, improvements in grammar, clarity, and referencing are needed to enhance the overall quality of the writing.

Author Response

Thanks for reviewing my article! Please check the reply from the pdf attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors described a topic of interest. The paper is written in clear manner.

The figures are well done and well described. 

At the same time, some revisions are necessary.

Lines 10-52: Is it the abtract? If yes, I suggest to reduce the numbers of words (200 words as reported by instrucions for authors).

Revised all references inside the text: the istructions for authors required a number for each reference and not names.

Insert poin in each subheading:

1.

2.

References: list of references must be re-written according instructions for authors

Author Response

Thanks for reviewing my article! Please check the reply from the pdf attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I would like to commend you on the excellent quality of your manuscript. The clear presentation of the results and the thorough discussion provide the audience with a comprehensive understanding of your research. I have reviewed the manuscript and have no major revisions to suggest. However, I have made some minor adjustments, which are highlighted in the annotated manuscript attached. Please incorporate these changes to enhance the readability of the text. Additionally, it would be beneficial to improve the clarity of the figures and the font sizes used. Other than these suggestions, I want to congratulate you on your comprehensive work. Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

I did not identify any significant modifications required for the language or overall structure of the paper. However, I have made minor corrections, which are noted in the annotated manuscript.

Author Response

Thanks for reviewing my article! Please check the reply from the pdf attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accept the paper in the present form.