Review of Processing and Interpretation of Self-Potential Anomalies: Transfer of Methodologies Developed in Magnetic Prospecting
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript provides good review about one of the underutilized geophysical techniques for the geoscience community in terms of data analysis and interpretation. The abstract needs to indicate the major comments/findings of this review to attract the reader to continue reading your article. Also, you have referred to the analysis of the magnetic method but you also made a mention of other methods such as ERT which distract the reader. Try to be consistent with the units and the terms you are using.
Additional comments are indicated in the attached pdf file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for the comprehensive analysis.
Practically all places noted by Reviewer are rewritten and yellow colored in the revised variant of the paper. Thank you very much! It was a comprehensive work! Now this MS looks much better.
About the ERT mention. Where is a distraction? It is only a very brief mention underlying some SP preferences comparing with the ERT method.
About consistency with the applied units and terms. The similarity of the magnetic and SP field is proved. In the magnetic method, for the model of thin bed, magnetic model is determined as 1/2 of anomaly intensity (nT) multiplied to the depth of anomalous source (in m) (it is measured in nT×m). This formula is transferred to SP method, where it is measured as 1/2 of anomaly intensity (mV) multiplied to the depth of anomalous source (in m) (mV×m).
For the model of horizontal circular cylinder in the magnetic method is employed a more complex formula where we receive the corresponding value in nT×m2. In the SP method it will be mV×m2.
The corresponding Acknowledgements to reviewers are added.
Thanks!
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper provides a careful state of the art of the relationship between magnetic and self-potential fields. This work recalls the fundamental aspects that are often forgotten in recent articles and provides a way to calculate direction of electric self-polarisation vectors in estimation of dipping of anomalous objects. This review offers modern interpreting procedures for complex environments where this non-expensive geophysical methodology can successfully be applied. The large number of examples reported in the second part of the manuscript illustrates how reliably geometric parameters of buried anomalous target can be obtained in complex physical-geological environments showing the effectiveness of the approach. This paper is welcome at this time and I recommend the publication.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.docx
Author Response
Thank you for your positive review!
Reviewer 3 Report
Geosciences :
"Review of processing and interpretation of self-potential anomalies: Transfer of methodologies developed in magnetic prospecting"
by Lev Eppelbaum
Review
This paper represents a review of self-potential data processing and interpretation in different branches of applied geophysics: mining, archaeology, environment and technogenic. The author presents a unified system of SP data analysis. A transfer of advanced magnetic data analysis to SP data processing allows getting advantage of the most useful achievements accomplished in the magnetic interpretation methodologies. Proposed procedures for calculation of self-potential vector (analogue of magnetization vector) and self-potential moment (analogue of magnetic moment) are of special interest.
This review of SP development and applications will be interesting for a wide range of readers.
I recommend this paper for publication with minor revision.
Detailed comments
Some figures are in color and some others in B/W. I recommend homogenizing the presentation of maps and profiles.
Only the first 4 equations are numbered and the others until the page 211 are not. I recommend numbering all the equations.
Line 103, p3. Equation is not numbered and is different from the standard deviation definition. Why not using the standard deviation?
Line 310, p. 10. "Formulas describing the potential character of magnetic (eq. (7)) and SP (eq. (8))–check the numbering of equations : should be "Formulas describing the potential character of magnetic (eq. (6)) and SP (eq. (7)).
Line 525, p.20. Not "mictodiamonds", but "microdiamonds".
In the captions in Figure 9, a designation for (8) is missed.
Paragraph 5.4.3 is unclear and should be rewritten.
Author Response
Some figures are in color and some others in B/W. I recommend homogenizing the presentation of maps and profiles.
Agree and done.
Only the first 4 equations are numbered and the others until the page 211 are not. I recommend numbering all the equations.
Done.
Line 103, p3. Equation is not numbered and is different from the standard deviation definition. Why not using the standard deviation?
Corrected to conventional form.
Line 310, p. 10. "Formulas describing the potential character of magnetic (eq. (7)) and SP (eq. (8))–check the numbering of equations : should be "Formulas describing the potential character of magnetic (eq. (6)) and SP (eq. (7)).
Corrected.
Line 525, p.20. Not "mictodiamonds", but "microdiamonds".
Corrected.
In the captions in Figure 9, a designation for (8) is missed.
Corrected.
Paragraph 5.4.3 is unclear and should be rewritten.
The corresponding Acknowledgements to reviewers are added.
Thanks!
