Geochemistry and Mineralogy of the Clay-Type Ni-Laterite Deposit of San Felipe (Camagüey, Cuba)
, Salvador Galí 1, Cristina Villanova-de-Benavent 1, Alfonso Chang-Rodríguez 2, Kenya Núñez-Cambra 3, Giorgi Khazaradze 4 and Joaquín Antonio Proenza 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors should improve the readability and overall quality of this article (particularly in the introduction, geology, and methodology parts) before considering it for publication in your journal. My comments and suggestions are attached to above
Please refer to all comments shown in the attached annotated file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Some figures can be further improved (The font size in Figure 1 should be uniform).
2.The conclusion can be further condensed.
In Line 20 and Line 21, please check the unit statement.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
This is a nice paper on the mineralogy and geochemistry of the smectite-rich Ni-laterite at San Felipe and I enjoyed reading the manuscript. I understand that this is a quite exploratory work and I appreciate the effort made for comparing with other known clay-type Ni-laterites. Apart from a few minor comments, I believe that the manuscript could benefit from a more extensive discussion regarding the timing of mineralisation, the influence of geomorphology and mineralogy/geochemistry of the parent rock, and the origin of amorphous or poorly crystaline silica. It is too bad that you only have XRF geochemistry on major/minor elements, I would have loved to see some Sc concentrations ! Indeed with such a pyroxene-rich protolith (before serpentinisation), we might expect some elevated Sc concentrations, though the behaviour of Sc during smectitisation remains to be further constrained. Please see the comments made in the pdf file.
Regards,
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Despite some comments, the authors addressed them well enough for the paper to be accepted for publicationbest wishes
