Comparison of Backprojection Techniques for Rupture Propagation Modelling of the M_w = 7.8 Mainshock Earthquake near Kahramanmaras and the M_w = 7.5 Second-Largest Mainshock near Elbistan, Turkey, 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

 

I hope this finds you well. Please find my review of the manuscript.

 

The paper “Comparison of Backprojection Techniques for Rupture Propagation Modeling of the Mw=7.8 Earthquake near Kahramanmaras and Its Mw=7.5 Aftershock near Elbistan, Turkey, 2023” explores the rupture propagation, spatial extent, and velocity field of two destructive earthquakes along the East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ).

 

Overall, this is a clear and concise manuscript. The introduction is relevant and grounded in theory, providing a solid foundation for the study. The presentation of previous research findings allows readers to contextualize the current work. The research methodology is well-suited and appropriate for achieving the study's objectives. The results are presented clearly and are compelling.

 

This manuscript has significant implications for theoretical development. While the outreach of the work could be enhanced, the study itself is of great interest. With adequate revisions, I believe the manuscript can be recommended for publication. Specific comments follow.

 

Comments:

 

• Enrich the abstract with valuable results to enhance audience understanding.
• Clearly articulate the novelty of this study within the text.
• Provide detailed descriptions of the figures and discuss the results comprehensively.
• Ensure all figures are of high resolution, with particular attention to figures 3 and 4.
• Revise the captions for figures 3 and 4.
• Results and Discussion: To elevate the scientific value of the manuscript, expand the results section by comparing the findings with those from previous studies.

 

Regards

 

Author Response

Response to comments Reviewer 1

 

We would like to thank all reviewers for reading and commenting our manuscript. We appreciate the valuable time spent. 

 

To assist the reconsideration of our paper we provide two discrete files additional to the whole revision:

1. PaperTurkey_v3.pdf: This pdf shows the corrections as 

a1.pink highlighted text for Reviewer 1

a2.green highlighted text for Reviewer 2;

a3.cyan highlighted text  for Reviewer 3;

a4.yellow highlighted text for changes by Authors. 

This pdf is the output of pdflatex of the LaTEX file PaperTurkey_v3.tex.

 

(b) PaperTurkey_v4.pdf: This pdf is the final clean paper. This pdf is the output of pdflatex of the LaTEX file PaperTurkey_v4.tex.

 

PaperTurkey_v3.pdf can be accessed as a part of the SupplementaryFiles of the MDPI’s system. It is a crucial file because it shows all the changes, i.e., language alterations and the responses to all the reviewers.

 

We have added the only new reference of 2025 so as to discuss further the findings of the paper and three references of 2024 and 2025 for a new subsection regarding the two destructive Earthquakes of the study (4 references in total). The initial paper had 108 references and the revised paper has 112 references.

 

We hope that we have managed to address all comments raised and that we have responded adequately.

 

 

Comment 1:

The paper “Comparison of Backprojection Techniques for Rupture Propagation Modeling of the Mw=7.8 Earthquake near Kahramanmaras and Its Mw=7.5 Aftershock near Elbistan, Turkey, 2023” explores the rupture propagation, spatial extent, and velocity field of two destructive earthquakes along the East Anatolian Fault Zone (EAFZ).

Overall, this is a clear and concise manuscript. The introduction is relevant and grounded in theory, providing a solid foundation for the study. The presentation of previous research findings allows readers to contextualize the current work. The research methodology is well-suited and appropriate for achieving the study's objectives. The results are presented clearly and are compelling.

This manuscript has significant implications for theoretical development. While the outreach of the work could be enhanced, the study itself is of great interest. With adequate revisions, I believe the manuscript can be recommended for publication.

 

Reply 1:

We would like to thank the reviewer for the kind expressions and the precise outline of our paper. We would like to thank also for evaluating this paper as adequate for publication.

 

 

Comment 2:

Enrich the abstract with valuable results to enhance audience understanding.

 

Reply 2:

Although always being careful on that particular issue, this time, unfortunately, it eluded our perception. We have corrected that.  The changes however cannot be shown in the Abstract section because of limitations of the MDPI’s LaTEX class.

 

The initial Abstract was 180 words whereas the limit of 200 words has to be followed in all MDPI journals. For this reason we have deleted words of minor significance to add results. Scattered results are now presented in the Abstract section trying however not to change it entirely since it has not been indicated by any of the three reviewers.We also keep everywhere the present tense, and we have done this in the Abstract as well.Now Abstract is precisely 200 words.

 

We believe that we did as much as we could under the above mentioned constraints. We hope that we have done it in a satisfactory manner.

 

 

 

Comment 3: 

Clearly articulate the novelty of this study within the text.

 

Reply 3

At first in the initial and revised manuscripts we had (and have) a last section entitled “Evaluation Limitations” where we express the plus and minus of the work. Also the novelties.

We have revised the conclusions which now show the novelties better. Both above sections are parts of the text.

We have included data in Abstract section changing expressions up to the limit of 200 words indicating the main novelty which is to study the rupture of the two earthquakes with success via Bemforming and MUSIC backprojection.

 

The following text was written (and still is) in the last paragraph of the Introduction just before the remainder (small alterations).

“ Τhrough these techniques key rupture's aspects are extracted, such as the location and evolution of the high frequency radiation sources of the rupture's process.”

“To achieve this, back projection is applied on the teleseismic body wave data acquired from thirty two (32) broadband stations of the USArray network of the US in for the Mw=7.8, Kahramanmaras earthquake and from one hundred and from four (104) broadband stations located in Canada.”

The above text  with markings can be found in PaperTurkey_v3.pdf (changes marked), but can be found  in PaperTurkey_v4.pdf (clean paper)

 

In this paragraph we state clearly what is the objective, that is the novelty. Otherwise there is absolutely no need to begin, do the research and write the paper if the issue was solved. So up to now three are the different parts where the novelty are shown.

 

Then in PaperTurkey_v3.pdf (changes marked) between lines 154 and 157, we state the advantages of beamforming and then we state its main disadvantage. Swimming artefacts and acting on the field of time. Then in PaperTurkey_v3.pdf (changes marked) between lines 202 and 222 we clearly state the advantages of MUSIC back projection

 

These information in relation with the above, indicate that these techniques have not been used for the two destructive EQs (added also a new section for the destructive outcomes) and also have the advantages outlined. These are given in text.

 

The key phrases in the conclusions are unchanged and state (same as above in Introduction)

“Through these techniques key rupture's aspects are extracted, such as the location and evolution of the high frequency radiation sources of the rupture's process.”

Then we continue in the conclusions (with some expression changes by us in yellow highlight)

The MUSIC backprojection technique resolves the rupture's segments and quantifies the rupture’s behaviour of both events. This is because the sliding concept of the reference window that is applied in MUSIC backprojection at low frequencies enable the mitigation of the swimming artefact on the time shift stack, which is a result of the non-stationarity of the recorded signals. The beamforming technique is not as efficient in resolving the rupture’s process in any event. 

 

We believe that through this reply we have clarified that the novelties are actually given in text in several parts. Importantly in Abstract and Conclusions (the most significant parts of a paper) and in the paragraph we had generated to assist the review (Evaluation Limitations)

 

We understand that the reviewer might consider that a whole clear statement should be given. However this can only be done after everything is presented. Therefore in the last paragraph of the core of the text. We have chosen to present the novelties in the next sections (Conclusions, Evaluation-Limitations). Since our aspects are not-a-priory correct we are open to a new round of review and making adequate additional suggestions.

 

We regret that we have nothing solid to present but possibly our reply might be considered satisfactory. However later in our Reply 7 the reviewer may find concrete evidence on some novelties on a scientific basis. After reading reply 7 some issues might be further solved.

   

Comments 4  and 6:

Provide detailed descriptions of the figures and discuss the results comprehensively.

Revise the captions for figures 3 and 4.

 

Replies 4 and 6:

The only issue that we have found is is mentioning the star in figure 4b. This is because it is below points and is difficult to observe. So here we have deleted the phrase for the red star. However after a comment on how to refer to the Elbistan Earthquak, the captions of Figure 1,3 and  4 were changed accordingly. 

 

Regarding the description of the results in the initial paper (PaperTurkey_v2.pdf) we discuss the figures in the following lines.

Figure 1:lines 82-96

Figure 2:lines 101-110

Figure 3:lines 240-287

Figure 4: lines 288-320

Figure 5 & Table 1:lines 321-352

 

In the revised paper (PaperTurkey_v3.pdf-changes_marked, PaperTurkey_v4.pdf-clean paper)

Figure 1:lines 80-94 

Figure 2:lines 105-130

Figure 3:lines 273-311 & new Abstract & new Conclusions

Figure 4: lines 322-344 & new Abstract & new Conclusions

Figure 5 & Table 1:lines 345-378 & new Abstract & new Conclusions

 

There has been some time between submission and revision. Reading the paper many more times during revision we have searched to find whether there were any inconsistencies in other captions and figures’ description in text. Of course some in text expression were changed but the main core of the analysis was not much altered. Since we might not comprehended the comment as was implied, we are a-priori open to further suggestions.

 

Kindly take into consideration these details and if more work has to be done, we will surely try to solve this to implement in order to enhance the paper.

 

 

 

Comment 5:

Ensure all figures are of high resolution, with particular attention to figures 3 and 4.

 

Reply 5:

All figures are 300 dpi. Since we are mentioning it everywhere, we are very cautious on that always.Prior to submission, all figures were upgraded with GIMP to 300 dpi. Several filters were applied and several image processing since there is extended experience in image processing. Even the characters which is the most common problem when enhancing a figure are clear. You may kindly check this by zooming at any possible zoom (this is actually a good check). The images are not blurred in any part.There might be a problem in the actual presentation, but this is due to LaTEX subfigure environment, where each subfigure is reduced to 0.45*\textwidth. In LaTEX there are many alternatives to do that.Many times we have discussed such issues with MDPIs LaTEX team.They might choose something else in the production if of course the paper manages to get published. You may check all these issues not only in the embedded EPS images, but also in the full EPS and TIFF images. All images are uploaded as figures.zip, can be downloaded and opened locally or seen via browser. 

 

We tried to explain every small detail regarding the figures and we hope that our reply is adequate.

Comment 7:

Results and Discussion: To elevate the scientific value of the manuscript, expand the results section by comparing the findings with those from previous studies.

 

Reply 7:

We tried to address this further. We have searched scopus with the following terms:

I) earthquakes + MUSIC backprojection +Beamforming from 2020

found 1 paper related to our paper

II) rupture + MUSIC backprojection  OR Beamforming from 2020

found 10 documents, from which 5 papers were related to our paper

III) rupture OR MUSIC backprojection  + Beamforming from 2020

found the same 10 documents as in 2.

All such searches with the above criteria have been implemented already in GOOGLE SHCOLAR and were included already in reference list.

Despite out cautious new search from these 11 papers, just one was not included and it is from 2025. Namely the following

@article{zhang-etal-2025,

    author = {Zhang, Hao and Vidale, John E. and Wang, Wei},

    title = {Aftershocks on the Planar Rupture Surface of the Deep‐Focus Mw 7.9 Bonin Islands Earthquake},

    journal = {The Seismic Record},

    volume = {5},

    number = {1},

    pages = {35-43},

    year = {2025},

    doi = {10.1785/0320240035},

}

This was published after submission of our paper and hence we include this reference in the new reference list.

 

We would like here to clarify what we had discussed in our initial paper (PaperTurkey_v2.pdf) regarding this particular subject, namely comparisons of the present paper with similar papers. 

In the initial paper:

A) between lines 303-311 we compare issues regarding MUSIC backprojection and beamforming with the corresponding papers of the international literature

B) between lines 343 and 345 we compare the rupture findings with references 58,59 and 100.

C) between lines 379 and 405, we compare the velocity findings of Table 1 and the rupture’s propagation with the references 58,102,103,104,105,93,106,107,108,97,101 in the presentation appearance of the reference numbers up to the end.

Importantly, there are three different issues in the literature: 1) the importance of the earthquakes of Turkey; 2) the techniques, as standalone papers and 3) the propagation of the rupture (usually with earthquakes) We believe that we have tried hard to cover all these subject without separating them.

 

 

 

 

Now we go into the details of the revised paper (PaperTurkey_v3.pdf-changes marked) or PaperTurkey4.pdf (clean paper). We clarify what has be done and our thoughts on how to reply to this comment.

1) At first we have inserted the reference zhang-etal-2025 in the beginning of the 3rd paragraph of the introduction. The LaTEX expression is 

Beamfoming is the most classical backprojection array processing technique that is focused 

to the energy of the receiver from the hyphocentre of earthquakes \cite{bowden-etal-2020,meng-etal-2018,zhang-etal-2025}

This is because the paper of Zhang et al 2025 as stated in the Abstract section “exceptionally deep Mw 7.9 Bonin Islands earthquake, which occurred at a depth of 680 km in a region previously thought to be aseismic”. Obviously this is not the case for the EAFZ or the catastrophic double EQs here.

 

2) We have included a new subsection “\subsection{Studied earthquakes and their importance}” since these EQs are important and catastrophic originating from the seismic zone of the EAFZ. 

 

3) We ha inserted this reference in the last paragraph of subsection Beamforming mentioning the title 

“\hlp{in the aftershocks on the planar rupture surface of the deep-focus $M_w$ 7.9 Bonin islands earthquake”,\hlp is the pink highlight that refer to your comments.

 

4) There was this phrase at the end of the 3rd paragraph of the section Results and Discussion:

“On the other hand,both beamforming and MUSIC backprojection techniques coincide in the longitude-latidude and intensity findings from the dark blue points around the earthquakes and especially near both epicentres.This is also significant and should be emphasised. For both earthquakes, the beamfoming and MUSIC backprojection techniques indicate a main concentration points being along the direction of the dissipation of the energy.”

We considered adding here again some of the references given in subsections Beamforming and MUSIC backprojection, but then we thought that we will overdo with reference repetitions. So we avoided that here.

 

5) We changed expressions in Conclusions section adding key phrases

 

6) The mentioned lines of A,B and C of this reply 7, are in the revised paper (PaperTurkey_v3.pdf) in these lines:

AA) between lines 327-336 we compare issues regarding MUSIC backprojection and beamforming with the corresponding papers of the international literature

BB) between lines 368 and 370 we compare the rapture findings with references 58,59 and 100.

CC) between lines 373 and 407, we compare the velocity findings of Table 1 and the rupture’s propagation with the references 58,59,104,106,107,108,109,97,110,66,111,105 in the presentation scheme of the reference numbers up to the end.

 

We believe that we had found all recent references in the subject (and it was hard to study all these papers). We found the last new reference and added it. We have tried to keep the batch of our references after 2020.We have discussed in both version what could be presented in accordance to the available papers.In this reply we show that there are no other related papers. This makes our paper even more important as novelty. Despite however commenting on adding the novelty of our paper, the reviewer may understand that all these evidence cannot be written in text. This is because an analysis of the search criteria is found only in systematic reviews (and we had not done it in our reviews in that manner). So a paragraph on this will just distract the readers from the core of the paper. We have outlined, written and implied such information from the beginning up to the end. Possibly, reviewing once more our paper in view of the above analysis may pinpoint these issues in text and possibly solve anything more.

 

But we are open to a new round of review so as to enhance this part more.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript "COMPARISON OF BACKPROJECTION TECHNIQUES FOR RUPTURE PROPAGATION MODELLING OF THE Mw=7,8 EARTHQUAKE NEAR KAHRAMANMARAS AND ITS Mw=7,5 AFTERSHOCK NEAR ELBISTAN TURKEY, 2023" compares beamforming and MUSIC backprojection for modeling the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake rupture, finding MUSIC more precise for seismic hazard assessment. The study is quite comprehensive and contains important information for geoscientists. However, some sections need to be revised and improved.

• First of all, it should be proven that the Elbistan earthquake (Mw=7.5 or Mw=7.6 in some sources) is considered an aftershock. Many academic studies state that it is the second largest mainshock and the second mainshock in Elbistan was triggered by the positive Coulomb stress change in the Çardak fault, which forms dense clusters at both ends of the fault. Considering these studies, the expressions used in the article should be reviewed again.
• The article is rich in content, but the introduction section is quite weak in terms of Turkey's earthquakes. The introduction should mention the impact of the 2023 Turkey earthquake, highlighting that it was one of the most destructive earthquakes in the region and specifying the extent of the damage and human casualties it caused. According to the “10.3390/infrastructures9120219” more than 40,000 buildings collapsed and over 200,000 buildings were affected or heavily damaged in the region. These devastating earthquakes caused over 60,000 deaths and 115,000 injuries in south-central Turkey and northwestern Syria. The introduction can be enriched by briefly mentioning similar studies published in MDPI journals after Turkey's earthquakes.
• If the authors did not create the Figures and Tables used, please indicate the citation (Figure 2 and Table 1).
• Please also pay attention to the decimal separator comma in some places, dot in some places is used.
• Considering the scope of the study, the conclusion of this research is weak. This section should be strengthened by adding some key statements.
• Finally, after refining the review and incorporating all the suggested revisions and improvements, the paper can be considered for publication in your journal.

Author Response

Response to comments Reviewer 2

 

We would like to thank all reviewers for reading and commenting our manuscript. We appreciate the valuable time spent. 

 

To assist the reconsideration of our paper we provide two discrete files additional to the whole revision:

1. PaperTurkey_v3.pdf: This pdf shows the corrections as 

a1.pink highlighted text for Reviewer 1

a2.green highlighted text for Reviewer 2;

a3.cyan highlighted text  for Reviewer 3;

a4.yellow highlighted text for changes by Authors. 

This pdf is the output of pdflatex of the LaTEX file PaperTurkey_v3.tex.

 

(b) PaperTurkey_v4.pdf: This pdf is the final clean paper. This pdf is the output of pdflatex of the LaTEX file PaperTurkey_v4.tex.

 

PaperTurkey_v3.pdf can be accessed as a part of the SupplementaryFiles of the MDPI’s system. It is a crucial file because it shows all the changes, i.e., language alterations and the responses to all the reviewers.

 

We have added the only new reference of 2025 so as to discuss further the findings of the paper and three references of 2024 and 2025 for a new subsection regarding the two destructive Earthquakes of the study (4 references in total). The initial paper had 108 references and the revised paper has 112 references.

 

We hope that we have managed to address all comments raised and that we have responded adequately.

 

 

 

Comment 1

This manuscript "COMPARISON OF BACKPROJECTION TECHNIQUES FOR RUPTURE PROPAGATION MODELLING OF THE Mw=7,8 EARTHQUAKE NEAR KAHRAMANMARAS AND ITS Mw=7,5 AFTERSHOCK NEAR ELBISTAN TURKEY, 2023" compares beamforming and MUSIC backprojection for modeling the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquake rupture, finding MUSIC more precise for seismic hazard assessment. The study is quite comprehensive and contains important information for geoscientists. However, some sections need to be revised and improved.

Reply 1

We would like to thank the reviewer for the kind evaluation of our paper. Below the response to all issues raised is presented. 

 

 

 

Comment 2

First of all, it should be proven that the Elbistan earthquake (Mw=7.5 or Mw=7.6 in some sources) is considered an aftershock. Many academic studies state that it is the second largest mainshock and the second mainshock in Elbistan was triggered by the positive Coulomb stress change in the Çardak fault, which forms dense clusters at both ends of the fault. Considering these studies, the expressions used in the article should be reviewed again.

 

Reply 2

We appreciate this valuable comment of the reviewer. Accounting this comment we have changed everywhere the term “Elbistan aftershock” to Elbistan second largest mainshock” and fixing all expressions accordingly. The changes include also the title and Abstract. However due to restrictions in LaTEX class of MDPI, the changes in Title and Abstract cannot be shown as green highlights.

 

As indicated in our reply 3 (below) we inserted a new subsection where we mention all these details for the Coulomb’s stress change adding the reference of tan-etal-2025 (in our BibTEX file), [doi:10.1007/s11600-024-01419-y].

 

 

We have revised the title of the paper, but this cannot be highlighted either in MDPI’s LaTEX class. We altered the expressions in Abstract accordingly but this cannot be highlighted. Especially because we were requested to add some key results in the Abstract section.

 

We think hence that we have covered all aspects of comment 2.

 

 

Comment 3

The article is rich in content, but the introduction section is quite weak in terms of Turkey's earthquakes. The introduction should mention the impact of the 2023 Turkey earthquake, highlighting that it was one of the most destructive earthquakes in the region and specifying the extent of the damage and human casualties it caused. According to the “10.3390/infrastructures9120219” more than 40,000 buildings collapsed and over 200,000 buildings were affected or heavily damaged in the region. These devastating earthquakes caused over 60,000 deaths and 115,000 injuries in south-central Turkey and northwestern Syria. The introduction can be enriched by briefly mentioning similar studies published in MDPI journals after Turkey's earthquakes.

 

Reply 3

We would like to thank the reviewer for the kind comments on our work and also for providing us with information to use together with the indicated DOI.

 

Since the Introduction is structured differently, we decided to insert a new sub-section after the sub-section “Geology and seismic significance of the area”. This new sub-section is entitled as Studied earthquakes and their importance” to avoid double mentioning “significance”. We believe that this structure is even better for the readers.

 

Comment 4

If the authors did not create the Figures and Tables used, please indicate the citation (Figure 2 and Table 1).

 

Reply 4

Table 1 summarises the results for the segments and velocities from Figure 5. Therefore the full output from of this table is not recreated from a reference and for this reason it was not mentioned.Not accounting issues of copyright (plagiarism) if  it was published in this form. Moreover it is created in LaTEX therefore its output is unique. 

 

If the reviewer implies the data for distance, time and direction these were found from USGS, but can also be found by several other sources with differences.The idea is to give an estimation of the velocities and not the absolute truth of these. To take into consideration also this posibility, we  updated the caption of  Table 1 adding the crucial word estimation. The only alternative interpretation of this comment might refer to the significant figures of the velocity values. Since in every row, at least, distance or time (or both) have two significant figures, their division (velocity)  has two significant figures. We corrected som typos however (highlighted in yellow) and substituted comma with dot (highlighted green).

 

Figure 2 is one of the several available figures that can be found in SCOPUS, SCHOLAR or Google images. However, the precise figure 2 is not found. This is because the image after derivation, has been processed with GIMP, upgraded to 300dpi, new color sets were employed together with numerous filters and image processing routines and as result it is unique. Especially after receiving this comment, a series of new searches were initiated to find a similar image but were all not successful.

 

If however, the reviewer has the references that prove that the exact output of Table 1 and Figure 2 suffer from plagiarism, since this is completely inappropriate and not ethical, we would be glad to include these references and mention these in the corresponding Captions. These are very significant subjects and for this reason we are a-priory need these corrections, if existing.

 

 

 

Comment 5

Please also pay attention to the decimal separator comma in some places, dot in some places is used

 

Reply 5

We have found several problems after the reviewer indicated that. It is sure that as many times as someone reads the paper, some mistakes seem to be persistent. Actually it is an issue between the commas in English, US keyboards and those in Hellenic keyboards. We have fixed these problems everywhere.

 

 

Comment 6

Considering the scope of the study, the conclusion of this research is weak. This section should be strengthened by adding some key statements.

 

Reply 6

Indeed reading the paper after the reviewing period, this was more than evident. Towards this we we added key statements from the results section as the reviewer indicated. These are shown in green highlight. We reorganised the available text, however not highlighting this to show that this text is not altered.We also deleted some phrases that we decided that they are of no use in this reworded section.

 

 

 

Comment 7

Finally, after refining the review and incorporating all the suggested revisions and improvements, the paper can be considered for publication in your journal.

 

Reply 7

We took into account all comments of the reviewer because we also believe that they are very significant and were expressed in very intuitive manner.Indeed they helped us enhancing the paper. We believe that the comments were key to this research and we hope that we managed to incorporate these and to respond adequately. We hope for a positive evaluation of the R1 revision.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

geosciences-3522664    REVIEW

 

This paper compares the beamforming and MUSIC back-projection techniques for an important and damaging earthquake and aftershock in Turkey.  The work is presented in a straightforward and interesting manner and clearly shows the advantage of one method over the other.  The paper can be published after the following questions are addressed. 

 

[1] Line 41, 122: When you say, “to the back”, do you mean to their source or origin? 

 

[2] Lines 48-50: Can you give a slightly more detailed explanation of this sentence? 

 

[3] Lines 93-94: Are there not more recent velocity models available? 

 

[4] Line 132: “week” should be “weak”. 

 

[5] Line 156: At the first mention of “f-k”, it is probably best to spell it out as “frequency-wavenumber”. 

[6] Page 9, 10: Going from Figure 3 to 4, one can see the improvement due to the MUSIC method.  Does this improvement depend on the type of fault (strike-slip in your case)?  Would it be the same for other types of faults? 

Author Response

Response to comments of Reviewer 3

 

We would like to thank all reviewers for reading and commenting our manuscript. We appreciate the valuable time spent. 

 

To assist the reconsideration of our paper we provide two discrete files additional to the whole revision:

1. PaperTurkey_v3.pdf: This pdf shows the corrections as 

a1.pink highlighted text for Reviewer 1

a2.green highlighted text for Reviewer 2;

a3.cyan highlighted text  for Reviewer 3;

a4.yellow highlighted text for changes by Authors. 

This pdf is the output of pdflatex of the LaTEX file PaperTurkey_v3.tex.

 

(b) PaperTurkey_v4.pdf: This pdf is the final clean paper. This pdf is the output of pdflatex of the LaTEX file PaperTurkey_v4.tex.

 

PaperTurkey_v3.pdf can be accessed as a part of the SupplementaryFiles of the MDPI’s system. It is a crucial file because it shows all the changes, i.e., language alterations and the responses to all the reviewers.

 

We have added the only new reference of 2025 so as to discuss further the findings of the paper and three references of 2024 and 2025 for a new subsection regarding the two destructive Earthquakes of the study (4 references in total). The initial paper had 108 references and the revised paper has 112 references.

 

We hope that we have managed to address all comments raised and that we have responded adequately.

 

 

Comment 1:

This paper compares the beamforming and MUSIC back-projection techniques for an important and damaging earthquake and aftershock in Turkey.  The work is presented in a straightforward and interesting manner and clearly shows the advantage of one method over the other.  The paper can be published after the following questions are addressed. 

 

Reply 1:

We would like to thank the reviewer for the outline of our paper and the suggestion for publication

 

 

 

 

Comment 2:

Line 41, 122: When you say, “to the back”, do you mean to their source or origin?

 

 

Reply 2:

This expression shows what back-projection does.

 

In former line 41, we have deleted the award phrase and written 

These techniques \hlc{back-}project the characteristics of the seismic waves in order to estimate their properties.

 

In former line 122, we have deleted the award phrase and written 

“As a backprojection technique,  beamforming \hlc{back-}projects the characteristics of the seismic waves…”

[\hlc is the cyan highlighting for the changes]

 

Regarding what back projection does, it is the source that is projected to the back. It is written clearly in the paper https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-015801 (Kiser, E.; Ishii, M. Combining seismic arrays to image the high-frequency characteristics of large earthquakes. Geophysical Journal International 2012, 188, 1117–1128, added DOI now) and has Figure 2 there which shows precisely that.

 

We hope that we have responded adequately.

 

 

 

Comment 3:

Lines 48-50: Can you give a slightly more detailed explanation of this sentence?

 

 

Reply 3:

The phrase is “The backprojection techniques are based on the high frequency contents of coherent seismic body waves”

 

This phrase “the backprojection techniques are based on the high frequency contents of coherent seismic body waves”is written in the start of the Abstract section of reference 1 of the initial paper (still 1 in the revised paper) and the “coherent” is analysed in text. 

 

The phrase “and as a result they do not depend on the structural inhomogeneities of the earth’s crust, nor the geometry of existing fault systems”  is implied in several parts of the above references, however since it raised questions we have selected to delete tis part. 

 

So now the phrase is just”The backprojection techniques are based on the high frequency contents of coherent seismic body waves \cite{du-etal-2021,kiser-and-ishii-2017}” and we hope that through this we have replied adequately

 

 

 

Comment 4

Lines 93-94: Are there not more recent velocity models available? 

 

 

Reply 4

This is a well accepted model. For example in the recent reference 

@article{du-etal-2021,

  title={Estimating rupture front of large earthquakes using a novel multi-array back-projection method},

  author={Du, Hailin},

  journal={Frontiers in Earth Science},

  volume={9},

  pages={680163},

  year={2021},

  publisher={Frontiers Media SA},

  doi={https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.680163},

}

its written that “Based on the AK135 velocity model, the relative back-projection method (Du et al., 2009; Zhang and Ge, 2010)”.

 

 

 

Then in the paper 

@article{kiser-and-ishii-2017,

  title={Back-projection imaging of earthquakes},

  author={Kiser, Eric and Ishii, Miaki},

  journal={Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences},

  volume={45},

  number={1},

  pages={271--299},

  year={2017},

  publisher={Annual Reviews}

  doi={https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-063016-015801},

}

it is written that “… but these simulations are computationally expensive and detailed velocity models at relevant length scales are not always available.”

 

Concluding, it may be supported that there are other velocity models, but the AK135 is considered good and does not complicate the calculations.

 

We hope that the presented evidence has covered this interesting comment.

 

 

 

Comment 5

Line 132: “week” should be “weak”.

 

Reply 5

Thank you!

 

 

 

 

Comment 6

Line 156: At the first mention of “f-k”, it is probably best to spell it out as “frequency-wavenumber”.

 

Reply 6

Done. Thank you.

Comment 7

Page 9, 10: Going from Figure 3 to 4, one can see the improvement due to the MUSIC method.  Does this improvement depend on the type of fault (strike-slip in your case)?  Would it be the same for other types of faults? 

 

 

 

Reply 7

Unfortunately we do not have evidence that this can be generalised. But it is a very interesting point. We have not found it in the literature, unless something has missed from our perception. Hence we do not have something to add in text for that comment.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors addressed all the reviewer's comments. No further revisions are required.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you very much for your valuable time that you have spent commenting on our paper and many thanks for the suggestion for publication.