Evolution of Syenite Magmas: Insights from the Geology, Geochemistry and O-Nd Isotopic Characteristics of the Ordovician Saibar Intrusion, Altai-Sayan Area, Russia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found manuscript interesting. All minor notices  which should be considered in the revision are marked (comments) in the pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for their very constructive comments which we have thoroughly addressed.

Taking into account the comments of the reviewers, we have classified all questions into major and minor.

The main changes concerned the correct use of microprobe studies and the style of discussion. The following should be noted here. Taking into account the lack of data on the composition of pyroxenes for predominant alkaline syenites, as well as taking into account the lack of data that are necessary for the correct recalculation of amphiboles, we decided to remove the section from the article with the results of microprobe studies. In the future, we intend to conduct additional microprobe studies and present another article with an emphasis on the evolution of mineral compositions of the Saibar intrusion. In the “Discussion” section, we tried to correctly assess the factual materials that were obtained in the course of the study. In addition, in view of the questions about the characterization of mafic magmas, we have added a description of mafic dikes and discussed the possibility of an evolutionary series that starts from mafic magmas.

Minor questions relate to terminology, decoding of abbreviations, additional   references. We tried to take into account most of these comments in the new version. In particular, we pointed out that, according to the terminology adopted in Russia, ordinary syenites are usually classified as subalkaline rocks. Alkaline syenites differ from subalkaline syenites in mineral composition.

In addition, we took into account the comments on the quality of the translation from Russian into English. The article was re-edited in Russian and then re-translated into English by another translator.

Thus, in addition to specifically addressing the reviewer comments we have also done several rounds of additional editing of the manuscript to improve its clarity and flow.

2 co-authors have been added to the list of authors.

We truly appreciate the reviewers’ remarks.

Sincerely,
Alexander Vorontsov, Andrey Izoh, Vladimir Yarmolyuk, Tatyana Komaritsyna, Anatoly Nikiforov, Olga Perfilova, Sergei Dril, Nailya Rizvanova and Egor Dushkin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Hi,

The manuscript has many issues with data presentation. See attached file. I did not review the entire manuscript. I am unable to judge the discussion if the results aren't presented clearly.

I will be happy to review it again once the data presentation issues and other comments in the attached file are addressed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for their very constructive comments which we have thoroughly addressed.

Taking into account the comments of the reviewers, we have classified all questions into major and minor.

The main changes concerned the correct use of microprobe studies and the style of discussion. The following should be noted here. Taking into account the lack of data on the composition of pyroxenes for predominant alkaline syenites, as well as taking into account the lack of data that are necessary for the correct recalculation of amphiboles, we decided to remove the section from the article with the results of microprobe studies. In the future, we intend to conduct additional microprobe studies and present another article with an emphasis on the evolution of mineral compositions of the Saibar intrusion. In the “Discussion” section, we tried to correctly assess the factual materials that were obtained in the course of the study. In addition, in view of the questions about the characterization of mafic magmas, we have added a description of mafic dikes and discussed the possibility of an evolutionary series that starts from mafic magmas.

Minor questions relate to terminology, decoding of abbreviations, additional   references. We tried to take into account most of these comments in the new version. In particular, we pointed out that, according to the terminology adopted in Russia, ordinary syenites are usually classified as subalkaline rocks. Alkaline syenites differ from subalkaline syenites in mineral composition.

In addition, we took into account the comments on the quality of the translation from Russian into English. The article was re-edited in Russian and then re-translated into English by another translator.

Thus, in addition to specifically addressing the reviewer comments we have also done several rounds of additional editing of the manuscript to improve its clarity and flow.

2 co-authors have been added to the list of authors.

 

We truly appreciate the reviewers’ remarks.

 

Sincerely,
Alexander Vorontsov, Andrey Izoh, Vladimir Yarmolyuk, Tatyana Komaritsyna, Anatoly Nikiforov, Olga Perfilova, Sergei Dril, Nailya Rizvanova and Egor Dushkin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

There appears to be a lot of high quality data in this report and I fully support publication of this report.  However there are 3 very major problems: 1) the translation from Russian to English, and the use of English is very poor and must be corrected. 2) The description of analytical methods is incoherent, probably owing to poor translation to English. I suspect there is not a problem with the analytical techniques, but I can't tell from the current explanation. 3) There are a lot of  tables and diagrams, but they are poorly explained and inadequately synthesized.  It seems like the authors thought if they posted all the diagrams the readers would look at them and figure out the implications without any help from the authors. There should be more than a figure caption for each diagram -- there should be a coherent explanation of the purpose of each diagram and of the results shown on each diagram. The diagrams and their implications should be presented in a logical order and the results should be synthesized before interpretations are made.  This report brings to mind the phrase "if we throw enough mud at the wall some of it will stick".  The conclusions of the report are presented as assertions based on assumptions.  The conclusions must be data-driven.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for their very constructive comments which we have thoroughly addressed.

Taking into account the comments of the reviewers, we have classified all questions into major and minor.

The main changes concerned the correct use of microprobe studies and the style of discussion. The following should be noted here. Taking into account the lack of data on the composition of pyroxenes for predominant alkaline syenites, as well as taking into account the lack of data that are necessary for the correct recalculation of amphiboles, we decided to remove the section from the article with the results of microprobe studies. In the future, we intend to conduct additional microprobe studies and present another article with an emphasis on the evolution of mineral compositions of the Saibar intrusion. In the “Discussion” section, we tried to correctly assess the factual materials that were obtained in the course of the study. In addition, in view of the questions about the characterization of mafic magmas, we have added a description of mafic dikes and discussed the possibility of an evolutionary series that starts from mafic magmas.

Minor questions relate to terminology, decoding of abbreviations, additional   references. We tried to take into account most of these comments in the new version. In particular, we pointed out that, according to the terminology adopted in Russia, ordinary syenites are usually classified as subalkaline rocks. Alkaline syenites differ from subalkaline syenites in mineral composition.

In addition, we took into account the comments on the quality of the translation from Russian into English. The article was re-edited in Russian and then re-translated into English by another translator.

Thus, in addition to specifically addressing the reviewer comments we have also done several rounds of additional editing of the manuscript to improve its clarity and flow.

2 co-authors have been added to the list of authors.

 

We truly appreciate the reviewers’ remarks.

 

Sincerely,
Alexander Vorontsov, Andrey Izoh, Vladimir Yarmolyuk, Tatyana Komaritsyna, Anatoly Nikiforov, Olga Perfilova, Sergei Dril, Nailya Rizvanova and Egor Dushkin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I judge that this article needs a lot of work from many points of view before it can be published. I wrote my comments in the attached file, entitled Evaluation of Referee 1. In addition, the list of non-Russian references is not quite up-to-date. I have supplied the reference to three appropriate articles.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for their very constructive comments which we have thoroughly addressed.

Taking into account the comments of the reviewers, we have classified all questions into major and minor.

The main changes concerned the correct use of microprobe studies and the style of discussion. The following should be noted here. Taking into account the lack of data on the composition of pyroxenes for predominant alkaline syenites, as well as taking into account the lack of data that are necessary for the correct recalculation of amphiboles, we decided to remove the section from the article with the results of microprobe studies. In the future, we intend to conduct additional microprobe studies and present another article with an emphasis on the evolution of mineral compositions of the Saibar intrusion. In the “Discussion” section, we tried to correctly assess the factual materials that were obtained in the course of the study. In addition, in view of the questions about the characterization of mafic magmas, we have added a description of mafic dikes and discussed the possibility of an evolutionary series that starts from mafic magmas.

Minor questions relate to terminology, decoding of abbreviations, additional   references. We tried to take into account most of these comments in the new version. In particular, we pointed out that, according to the terminology adopted in Russia, ordinary syenites are usually classified as subalkaline rocks. Alkaline syenites differ from subalkaline syenites in mineral composition.

In addition, we took into account the comments on the quality of the translation from Russian into English. The article was re-edited in Russian and then re-translated into English by another translator.

Thus, in addition to specifically addressing the reviewer comments we have also done several rounds of additional editing of the manuscript to improve its clarity and flow.

2 co-authors have been added to the list of authors.

 

We truly appreciate the reviewers’ remarks.

 

Sincerely,
Alexander Vorontsov, Andrey Izoh, Vladimir Yarmolyuk, Tatyana Komaritsyna, Anatoly Nikiforov, Olga Perfilova, Sergei Dril, Nailya Rizvanova and Egor Dushkin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear editor and authors,

The revised version is much better and it is now possible to understand what the authors are talking about. Well done!
However, there are still two major issues:

1. I think it's best to simplify nomenclature. It's based on a Russian-language book which is not accessible to the English-speaking readers of Minerals. It is a bit different from that accepted today. I provide suggestions in the attached PDF on how to simplify it and make the entire thing easier to follow.
   2. I am extremely not convinced by the story about limestone assimilation. There is hardly any evidence to support that. If anything, the evidence is to the contrary. Lack of plagioclase, no xenoliths found, no foyaites next to the limestone contact. Can you do a mass balance mixing model and show that your foyaites are chemically plausible as mixing between the other rocks and limestone?

See attached file for more.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for carefully reading the article and making comments. According to the recommendations of distinguished reviewers, the authors made the changes (attached file Responses(Reviewer2,4)) to the text of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have tried to do a review of this second version of the manuscript regarding the Saibar intrusion by Vorontsov et al. The manuscript is significantly improved from version 1,  but very far from publishable. The primary problem is the clear and major language barrier.   At the start,  the abstract requires major revisions. I started in on suggestions for clarifying the abstract, but the whole MS is equally obtuse.  I believe these authors have done careful analyses and a thorough job, but I have to infer this because the MS still has such a major language barrier that the results are not clearly presented. I cannot read a clean copy with their track changes accepted, because it is in PDF format.  This makes for difficult reading and is a time-consuming handicap. I must simply state that this version 2 of the MS is not ready for review. 

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for carefully reading the article and making comments. According to the recommendations of distinguished reviewer, the authors made the changes (attached file Responses(Reviewer3)) to the text of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

This article is vastly improved! I offer a few comments to improve it further. Also, I assume that the editorial staff of the journal will go over your final text and will make final adjustments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors are grateful to the reviewer for carefully reading the article and making comments. According to the recommendations of distinguished reviewers, the authors made the changes (attached files Responses(Reviewer2,4)) to the text of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf