Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed article presents the databank on the earthquakes (EQ) in the Mediterranean region in long historical period. This determines the scientific soundness and significance of the work. Also, it presents a number of narratives to denote seismicity variations in various zones of studied region, and the discussion. The aim is to give rationale of the concept (or, probably hypotheses) that the strong EQ of 1939, Mw = 7.7, induced selective effect on geodynamic process and seismicity in Some Mediterranean Zones. For example, seismic activation after 1939 occurred in zones, closing tp NAF, but retardation was remarked at Serbo-Macedonian zone.  One can assume that the volume of seismological data is not enough for statistical tests to disprove zero hypothesis about that these seismic variations are random. Such a test could be more convincing that any comments (narratives). In the Discussion authors appealed to geodetic data and argued that their concept is reasonable alternative to the slab-pull model. So, the strong side of the paper is the unification of local seismic catalogs of numerous Mediterranean Zones for large historical period. This unified catalog should be involved in geoscience turnover! But the weak side of the paper is that the explanation is only qualitative, without statistical analysis.   

  The work is worth publishing. My recommendation to improve work is to give information, what is the total effect of EQ of 1939 in overall studied territory. Is this seismicity activation in Mediterranean region after 1939? Or, does cumulative variation of seismicity irrelevant?

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 of Mantovani et al., "Influence of the Strong 1939 Anatolian Earthquake on the Seismic Activity in Some Mediterranean Zones," is based on the analysis of historical earthquakes, geodetic observations, and tectonic modelling to provide a detailed understanding of seismic trends and mechanisms. ​It applies to a wide range of Mediterranean zones, offering insights into regional variations in seismicity.
The study critically evaluates alternative geodynamic models (e.g. slab-pull) and provides evidence supporting Anatolia's indentation-driven westward motion. These findings apply in seismic hazard assessment, helping identify areas prone to future seismic events. ​
The authors should examine this field to ameliorate their work. It concerns mainly the presentation of their results, such as tables with a long length (maybe they should be moved to an appendix). The variability in structural and rheological parameters used in post-seismic relaxation models introduces uncertainty, as the authors acknowledge. Of course, there is nothing more that they could do regarding this matter besides providing more detailed information in the discussion section on this matter and the limitations of the historical data that they have used.
Overall, the soundness of the methodology and the conclusions can be supported by the results. Therefore, I recommend publishing this research paper after some minor revisions concerning the presentation of its tables (For simplification, just move it to the appendix or keep the main ones).
Kind regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: geohazards-3571166

Title: Influence of the strong 1939 Anatolian earthquake on the seismic activity in some Mediterranean zones

The manuscript addresses a current and important issue aiming to investigate the deformations on the earth's surface by remote sensing methods; however, it contains serious deficiencies in methodological explanations, visual presentations and numerical analyses. While the method section remains superficial in terms of the data used and the analysis process, the visual quality of the maps is below scientific publication standards. The findings section lacks numerical details and the results are not sufficiently related to the literature. For these reasons, a comprehensive major revision is required to increase the scientific quality of the study.

Recommendation: Major Revisions

1. The title is quite general. Therefore, I think it does not reflect the original contribution. A more original, striking title that directly reflects the content would be appropriate.
2. The abstract should briefly and clearly state the purpose, method, and findings of the study. However, this abstract only contains general statements. It would be appropriate to write a structured abstract with clear emphasis on the purpose, method, findings, and conclusion sections.
3. The methods and analysis techniques used are explained superficially. It is not sufficiently explained which data is collected, how often and how. It is stated that remote sensing data is used, but the type and resolution of these data are not clear. Data sources, analysis methods, software tools and parameter selections should be detailed more transparently. Literature support for the applied methods should be added.
4. Deformation amounts are expressed only verbally. Numerical values, deformation direction, and intensity are missing.
5. It is insufficient to simply say ‘there is displacement’; details such as how much, in what direction, and in which period are needed.
6. The findings lack numerical details, and the results are not adequately related to the literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a valuable contribution to the field. The authors have made the corrections suggested by the reviewer. The manuscript is suitable for publication in your journal.