Element Geochemical Characteristics and Provenance Conditions of the 1st Member of Jurassic Zhongjiangou Formation in Wudun Sag, Dunhuang Basin

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor:
Element geochemical features and provenance circumstances of the 1st Jurassic Zhongjiangou 3 formation member in Wudun sag, Dunhuang Basin is a well-written study. Element geochemistry was used to examine weathering and sedimentary characteristics of the provenance area in order to determine the 12 differences in sediment sources between different well areas in order to clarify the provenance conditions of the 19th Zhongjiangou formation member in Wudun 10 sag, Dunhuang basin.
However, there are some gaps in the writing. There are several inaccuracies in the mentioned sources.
Why did the author just utilise 34 samples from three cored? The use of a small dataset must be explained by the author.
The Discussion section need further work, and the author should use recently released datasets/published domain articles to support their findings.

Author Response

Point 1: Why did the author just utilise 34 samples from three cored? The use of a small dataset must be explained by the author.

Response 1:

Dear reviewer:

This problem is mainly due to the low degree of exploration in Wudun sag. At present, there are only 4 wells drilled, of which 3 wells have coring data. In this study, intensive sampling has been achieved as much as possible when obtaining samples, and finally 34 samples have been obtained for experimental analysis.

 

 

Point 2: The Discussion section need further work, and the author should use recently released datasets/published domain articles to support their findings.

Response 2:

Dear reviewer:

This problem is due to the relatively low level of research in Wudun sag and relatively few papers published in recent years. I have added some recently published articles in relevant fields to support my point of view as much as possible in my revised draft.

 

Finally, I look forward to your further valuable comments on my revised draft.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

 It is good MS for determining the tectonic provenance, weathering rate in the source areas. This has been done using the elemental geochemical data.  I did my corrections and comments on attached file

Finally I accept publication, after answer of my corrections and comments.

 

Regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Point 1: I did my corrections and comments on attached file. Finally I accept publication, after answer of my corrections and comments.

 

Response 1: Please provide your response for Point 1. (in red)

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your meticulous modification and valuable comments on my article. I have systematically modified the article according to your comments in my revised draft, and updated the references you recommended. One problem is the title of the article. I think it doesn't need to be modified. At present, many similar articles also use this style of title, so I haven't modified the title of the article. Please understand.

 

I look forward to your further valuable comments on my revised draft.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The scientific article submitted for publication is good in terms of form and content
The title is appropriate for the content of the article
The writing style is good and clear and does not contain any mistakes in the English language, I did not find any difficulty in reading and understanding the text
The figures and tables are clear, tidy, and well-coordinated
The summary clearly summarizes the article and results
The summary is sufficient to reflect the content of the article
References are formatted, current and adequate
In my personal opinion, the article in its current form can be accepted for publication

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Thank you very much for your recognition of my paper. I have revised some grammar and spelling errors in my revised draft to improve my article as much as possible. Thank you again!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has been improved by the authors. I have no other comments to contribute. In my opinion,  this research can be published in Applied Sciences.