Activity Characteristic of the Two Buried Faults in Zhongwei Basin along the Northeastern Margins of Tibetan Plateau, China, by Means of Shallow Seismic and Composite Drilling Section Exploration
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1) The English writing should be improved. Please see the marked MS. note: only some inappropriate writting is marked, please checke the MS carefully and revise it.
2) The present paper only reports the finding from exploration, and concluds the two buried faults are inactive. It is suggested to further analyze the characteristics of the faults, and clarify the significance of the work.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
List of Responses to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer 1:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Activity characteristic of the two buried faults in Zhongwei Basin along the northeastern margins of Tibetan Plateau, China, by means of shallow seismic and composite drilling section exploration” (ID: applsci-1988648). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the manuscript. The main corrections in the manuscript and the responses to your comments are as follows:
Point 1: The English writing should be improved. Please see the marked MS. note: only some inappropriate writting is marked, please checke the MS carefully and revise it.
Response 1: We tried our best to improve the whole manuscript and made some changes of English writing in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. Here we did not list the changes but marked in red in the revised manuscript.
Point 2: The present paper only reports the finding from exploration, and concluds the two buried faults are inactive. It is suggested to further analyze the characteristics of the faults, and clarify the significance of the work.
Response 2: ​​Thank you so much for this excellent comment. Considering your suggestion, we have added "4.1. Discussion"(page 13~14). “Relationship between two buried faults and Tianjingshan fault” and “Seismic hazard assessment of two buried faults in the Zhongwei Basin”, these two aspects analyzed the characteristics of the faults and clarified the significance of the work, respectively. Here it was not listed in detail but was marked in red in the revised manuscript.
We appreciate your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents a seismic study coupled with drilling results to evaluate the recent activity of two faults along the northern edge of the Tibetan Plateau. Overall, this is reasonably well presented and the conculsion of faults inactive since the mid-pleistocene follow the results leading me to recommend publication after some revision.
The biggest issue for this paper is that is has the feel of data being pushed through a machine and then whatever results are found are unquestioned at any level. There isn’t actually any explanation of the collection or analysis of the seismic data in the methods section other than naming the type of seismograph. Other than just trying to divine information from figure 3 (seismic section), the reader is given no indication the number of instruments or spacing, the software and assumptions used in the analysis, or even the digitization interval of the data loggers.
The drilling and dating are similarly unquestioned at any level. As far as I can tell, samples were sent to a lab and numbers came back that were simply plugged into tables. Numbers like 174.91 +/- 8.18 kyr should have received at least a little introspection. Sure a machine can output those numbers but the uncertainty alone of > 8kyr shows the silliness at reporting ages to nearest 10 yrs. While on this, are those uncertainties 1 or 2 sigma or something else? The paper never says. Likewise, I am skeptical that the thicknesses of the strata can really be reported to the nearest cm. The manuscript notes that the core was pulled up in 2 m intervals. If 1 cm really is the thickenss resuolution, there should be some assurance that the 2 m intervals are extracted at higher uncertainy than that. Further, some of the layers are gravels which I imagine could have pebbles greater than 1 cm. Is OSL the only dating method used?
I’m not trying to make a big deal out of any one of these, but taken together, the utter lack of consideration for the uncertainty or true resolution of what the results are showing throughout the paper is somewhere between obliviousness for scientific principles and slopiness. The authors should address these issues.
It would be useful to at evaluate whether the depth of the upper breakpoints are reaonably consistent with deposition rates since the mid-pleistocene.
Since this is couched in terms of seismic hazard, what should we make of the fact that these seem inactive since the mid-pleistocene? The implied conclusion is that seismic hazard is low. Yet, I think it is fair to say that this area is tectonically active. Has deformation since the mid-pleistocene been taken up somewhere else? Could stress be building on these faults for a largish event? Again questions that are never even asked let alone answered.
Does numbering of sections really begin at zero rather than one?
The pieces are there, but some revision should be done before publication.
Author Response
List of Responses to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer 2:
Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Activity characteristic of the two buried faults in Zhongwei Basin along the northeastern margins of Tibetan Plateau, China, by means of shallow seismic and composite drilling section exploration” (ID: applsci-1988648). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the manuscript. The whole corrections in the manuscript and the responses to your comments are as follows:
Point 1: The manuscript presents a seismic study coupled with drilling results to evaluate the recent activity of two faults along the northern edge of the Tibetan Plateau. Overall, this is reasonably well presented and the conculsion of faults inactive since the mid-pleistocene follow the results leading me to recommend publication after some revision.
Response 1: On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to thank you very much for your kind recognition of this paper.
Point 2: The biggest issue for this paper is that is has the feel of data being pushed through a machine and then whatever results are found are unquestioned at any level. There isn’t actually any explanation of the collection or analysis of the seismic data in the methods section other than naming the type of seismograph. Other than just trying to divine information from figure 3 (seismic section), the reader is given no indication the number of instruments or spacing, the software and assumptions used in the analysis, or even the digitization interval of the data loggers.
Response 2: ​​We are very sorry for our negligence of the collection, processing, and explanation of the seismic data. Considering your suggestion, the section has been added to “1.1. Shallow Seismic Exploration” (page 3, marked in red). We listed the detailed parameters in the newly added Table 1 (page 4).
Point 3: The drilling and dating are similarly unquestioned at any level. As far as I can tell, samples were sent to a lab and numbers came back that were simply plugged into tables. Numbers like 174.91 +/- 8.18 kyr should have received at least a little introspection. Sure a machine can output those numbers but the uncertainty alone of > 8kyr shows the silliness at reporting ages to nearest 10 yrs. While on this, are those uncertainties 1 or 2 sigma or something else? The paper never says. Likewise, I am skeptical that the thicknesses of the strata can really be reported to the nearest cm. The manuscript notes that the core was pulled up in 2 m intervals. If 1 cm really is the thickenss resuolution, there should be some assurance that the 2 m intervals are extracted at higher uncertainy than that. Further, some of the layers are gravels which I imagine could have pebbles greater than 1 cm. Is OSL the only dating method used?
Response 3: ​​(1) It is really true as you suggested that 14 samples range in age from 100,000 years to more than 200,000 years, beyond the dating range, so the error is large but less than 10%. This suggests that the formation is older and was deposited before the late Pleistocene. It was added to “1.3. Sample Dating Test” (page 3~4, marked in red). (2) Gravel takes a sample about 0.3 m every 2 m. Tapeline is used to measure drill pipe and core length, measuring drill pipe every 30m to correct the borehole depth. These ensure that not only the core recovery rate, but also the error in the depth of each borehole is less than 10 cm. It was added to “1.2. Composite Drilling Section Exploration” (page 3, marked in red). (3) Both 14C and Optically-Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) samples should be collected. However, it was difficult to collect 14C samples from the drill core, so only OSL samples were available for this study. This tells was added to “1.3. Sample Dating Test” (page 3, marked in red).
Point 4: I’m not trying to make a big deal out of any one of these, but taken together, the utter lack of consideration for the uncertainty or true resolution of what the results are showing throughout the paper is somewhere between obliviousness for scientific principles and slopiness. The authors should address these issues.
Response 4: ​​Thank you very much for your kind comment. We have added "4.1. Discussion"(page 13~14). The aspect of “Relationship between two buried faults and Tianjingshan fault” analyzed the characteristics of the faults and clarified the resolution of the scientific issues.
Point 5: It would be useful to at evaluate whether the depth of the upper breakpoints are reaonably consistent with deposition rates since the mid-pleistocene.
Response 5: ​​We have made the correction according to your comment. We mainly consider the influence of the Yellow River pebble and sample age on deposition rates. It was added to “1.2. Composite Drilling Section Exploration” (page 3, marked in red).
Point 6: Since this is couched in terms of seismic hazard, what should we make of the fact that these seem inactive since the mid-pleistocene? The implied conclusion is that seismic hazard is low. Yet, I think it is fair to say that this area is tectonically active. Has deformation since the mid-pleistocene been taken up somewhere else? Could stress be building on these faults for a largish event? Again questions that are never even asked let alone answered.
Response 6: ​​Thank you so much for this excellent comment. Considering your suggestion, we have added "4.1. Discussion"(page 13~14). Based on the research results, the aspect of “Seismic hazard assessment of two buried faults in the Zhongwei Basin” clarified the significance of the Seismic hazard. Here it was not listed in detail but was marked in red in the revised manuscript (page 14).
Point 7: Does numbering of sections really begin at zero rather than one?
Response 7: We have made the correction according to your comment. The number of horizontal axis (Stake) has been converted to the actual distance, so the starting point is 0 m. The aspects were added to “Figure 3.” (page 6) and “Figure 5.” (page 10), respectively.
Point 8: The pieces are there, but some revision should be done before publication.
Response 8: As you suggested, we tried our best to improve the whole manuscript and made some changes. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. Here we did not list the changes but marked in red in the revised manuscript.
We appreciate your warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed the comments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1:
Thanks very much for your kind work and consideration on the publication of our paper. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to you.
Thank you and best regards.
Point 1: The authors have addressed the comments.
Response 1: we would like to thank you very much for your kind recognition of this paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is a second review of this manuscript. The discussion of tectonics/seismic hazard is
significantly improved and the explanation of methods has been expanded as needed. These revisions improve the manuscript sufficiently for me to endorse publication.
A couple of minor issues that do not need additional review, but could further benefit the manuscript:
1) For the captions in figs 3 & 5, it is ok to discard the added edits. The comment these were in resonse to were actually referring to the sections of the manuscript (i.e., intro = section 0). Starting with section 0 seems a bit weird to me, but maybe that is how the journal does it.
2) The significant digits are still pretty jarring. When a value like 75.29 m is given, it implies an uncertainty around 1 cm. The text now does explicity state uncertainties (really around 10cm in this example), so I am not inclined to make it a hold up for publication. That said, it would benefit the paper to report significant digits in line with actual uncertaines. At best the additional digits are simply unhelpful, but for someone who doesn’t carefully read the text for the uncertainties they can be a bit misleading.
3) I still think it would be helpful to note whether the reported formal uncertainties are 1 or 2 sigma (I suspect 1, but it would be good to see that clarified).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2:
Thanks very much for your kind work and consideration on the publication of our paper. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to you.
Point 1: For the captions in figs 3 & 5, it is ok to discard the added edits. The comment these were in resonse to were actually referring to the sections of the manuscript (i.e., intro = section 0). Starting with section 0 seems a bit weird to me, but maybe that is how the journal does it.
Response 1: We appreciate your finding these issues. The added edits have been discarded in fig. 3 & 5 (page 6, and page 10). The title number of each section has been changed (i.e., intro = section 1, marked in purple).
Point 2: The significant digits are still pretty jarring. When a value like 75.29 m is given, it implies an uncertainty around 1 cm. The text now does explicity state uncertainties (really around 10cm in this example), so I am not inclined to make it a hold up for publication. That said, it would benefit the paper to report significant digits in line with actual uncertaines. At best the additional digits are simply unhelpful, but for someone who doesn’t carefully read the text for the uncertainties they can be a bit misleading.
Response 2: ​​We are very sorry for our inadequate explanation of the measurement error. Considering your suggestion seriously, the section has been added to “2.2. Composite Drilling Section Exploration” (page 3, marked in purple). The minimum scale of the tapeline is 1 cm, and the measurement error is less than 1 cm. Thus, the number on the centimeter scale is certain and significant. It is required in Composite Drilling Section Exploration that the error in the depth of each borehole is less than 10 cm. That said, it is definite that the measurement error of the tapeline is less than 1 cm. However, the error in each borehole depth is caused by drilling construction. Therefore, these two aspects are not in conflict.
Point 3: I still think it would be helpful to note whether the reported formal uncertainties are 1 or 2 sigma (I suspect 1, but it would be good to see that clarified).
Response 3: ​​Thank you so much for these excellent comments. We have made the corrections according to your comments of Point 1and 2 (marked in purple), which are helpful to our manuscript. We wish to have your approval.
Once again, thank you and best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
