Eclogite Varieties and Their Positions in the Cratonic Mantle Lithosphere beneath Siberian Craton and Archean Cratons Worldwide

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper of Ashchepkov et al needs to be significantly improved before considering any scientific implications of the manuscript. There are too many typos, incomprehensible sentences, and messy figures. I highly encourage the authors to revise the English language and the precise and followable description of data collection and evaluation throughout the entire manuscript. 

Please find my annotated pdf attached to this review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The paper of Ashchepkov et al needs to be significantly improved before considering any scientific implications of the manuscript. There are too many typos, incomprehensible sentences, and messy figures. I highly encourage the authors to revise the English language and the precise and follow able description of data collection and evaluation throughout the entire manuscript. 

IVA: I corrected the typos. Language was preliminary corrected by prof. H.Downes. The descriptions and references and figures were also corrected.

Please find my annotated pdf attached to this review. I looked through the corrections in he manuscript and made all necessary modifications/

IVA: All corrections according to questions in the pdf file were made

Best wishes Igor Ashchepkov

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript focuses on mantle eclogites beneath Siberian craton and Archean craton worldwide. Four types of eclogites were identified and the depths of formation were estimated by re-calibrated geothermobarometers. This manuscript is of common interest, and thus, this manuscript is suitable for publication in Minerals, but major modification is needed to improve the paper.

1.       The style and English presentation, some of which are marked in the text, require in-depth revision. Although I am not a native English speaker, I found so many mistakes and inappropriate expressions. When I read the manuscript, I frequently puzzled by the English expression. As an example, the expression “As standards the NIST 610-612 SRF were used. We used for the secondary standard garnets and clinopyroxenes sample 313-73 analyzed by solution ICP MS in MRAC Belgium [109]” (Lines 101-102) should be corrected similar as “The NIST 610-612 SRF were used as standards. We used garnets and clinopyroxenes sample 313-73 for the secondary standard and analyzed by solution ICP MS in MRAC Belgium [109]”.

2.       The organization must also be improved. First, the manuscript lacks a detailed description about the re-calibration of various geothermobarometers, such as methods, experimental data and results. Although some information was provided in the supplementary, for the integrity of the article, some essential information must be presented in the article. Second, some contents are repetitive and redundant. As an example, the paragraphs 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 are nearly the same, where the only difference is the localities of eclogites. Actually, the enumeration of formation depths of eclogites from different pipes should be simplified. Third, the descriptions in the text and figures cannot be matched very well. For example, most figures contain more than one small figure, however, there is not symbols to distinguish them (see Fig. 3, 4, ….). And detailed descriptions of these figures are lacked. Furthermore, the figures have not been cited properly, so that sometimes, I hardly follow what authors said in the text (see section 3. For this part, I guess you refer to figure 2, but you did not cite this figure in the text). Fourth, there are many abbreviations in the text, however, most of them have not been interpreted anywhere, such as, Fe#, Fe, Fe Ol… And, why you use so many similar symbols? Are they the same meaning or different? Further, I suggest you distinguish parameters of bulk rock and different minerals. Fifth, you used both A, B, C and 1, 2, 3 for groups of eclogites. I suggest you use only one system for brevity.

3.       Small question, in the section 7.1, you say “The most Fe-rich eclogites (Gr3a) are commonly located in the middle of the mantle section….” in the first paragraph, and say “the position of the most Fe-rich varieties is slightly different….” In the second paragraph. What do you mean?

As a conclusion, the topic of this manuscript is interesting, but it must be improved significantly.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This manuscript focuses on mantle eclogites beneath Siberian craton and Archean craton worldwide. Four types of eclogites were identified and the depths of formation were estimated by re-calibrated geothermobarometers. This manuscript is of common interest, and thus, this manuscript is suitable for publication in Minerals, but major modification is needed to improve the paper.

IVA: of course I agree that the paper is suitable for the Minerals/ 

1. The style and English presentation, some of which are marked in the text, require in-depth revision.

IVA:  In general I agree  that corrections are necessary they were made.

2. Although I am not a native English speaker, I found so many mistakes and inappropriate expressions. When I read the manuscript, I frequently puzzled by the English expression. As an example, the expression “As standards the NIST 610-612 SRF were used. We used for the secondary standard garnets and clinopyroxenes sample 313-73 analyzed by solution ICP MS in MRAC Belgium [109]” (Lines 101-102) should be corrected similar as “The NIST 610-612 SRF were used as standards. We used garnets and clinopyroxenes sample 313-73 for the secondary standard and analyzed by solution ICP MS in MRAC Belgium [109]”.

IVA:  Corrected

3. The organization must also be improved. First, the manuscript lacks a detailed description about the re-calibration of various geothermobarometers, such as methods, experimental data and results. Although some information was provided in the supplementary, for the integrity of the article, some essential information must be presented in the article.

IVA:  Corrections are small they presented in the supplementary file 1/  All the diagrams are in the supplementary file 3

4. Second, some contents are repetitive and redundant. As an example, the paragraphs 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 are nearly the same, where the only difference is the localities of eclogites.

IVA : corrected

Actually, the enumeration of formation depths of eclogites from different pipes should be simplified. Third, the descriptions in the text and figures cannot be matched very well. For example, most figures contain more than one small figure, however, there is not symbols to distinguish them (see Fig. 3, 4, ….).

IVA:  Symbols are uniform they are repeated in many my papers starting from 2010

And detailed descriptions of these figures are lacked. Furthermore, the figures have not been cited properly, so that sometimes, I hardly follow what authors said in the text (see section 3. For this part, I guess you refer to figure 2, but you did not cite this figure in the text). Fourth, there are many abbreviations in the text, however, most of them have not been interpreted anywhere, such as, Fe#, Fe, Fe Ol… And, why you use so many similar symbols? Are they the same meaning or different? Further, I suggest you distinguish parameters of bulk rock and different minerals. Fifth, you used both A, B, C and 1, 2, 3 for groups of eclogites. I suggest you use only one system for brevity.

IVAAbbreviations were explained all.

IVA: Ok system now is uniform Group D was added.

3. Small question, in the section 7.1, you say “The most Fe-rich eclogites (Gr3a) are commonly located in the middle of the mantle section….” in the first paragraph, and say “the position of the most Fe-rich varieties is slightly different….” In the second paragraph. What do you mean?

IVA: The most Fe rich sample are commonly in the middle Part of SCLM

As a conclusion, the topic of this manuscript is interesting, but it must be improved significantly.

IVA: Thank you for review

Best wishes Igor Ashchepkov

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is improved significantly. It meets the requirement of Minerals. So I suggest accept after minor revision.

Some small problem are marked in the text.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The manuscript is improved significantly. It meets the requirement of Minerals. So I suggest accept after minor revision. Some small problem are marked in the text.

IVA: I corrected additionally text according to the recommendations  in the pdf file. Thank you

Igor Ashchepkov

Author Response File: Author Response.docx