The Process of Reconstructing the Ancient Magnetic Field Direction: A New Approach to Paleomagnetic Data for a Better Estimate of Accuracy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am in Antarctica with some internet limitations and using my cellphone for responding commitments. Yesterday, I tried to load several times the evaluation form, and looked like it did not load completely. I filled it, and also several times was freezed. In some opportunity, it seems that form was send. Sorry for this inconvenient.   Regarding evaluation, I followed the paper and found some few typos, but in general no problem in form. However, my main concern regarding the content of the paper that I wrote was "I advise incorporating a case study that allows comparing results and analyses of errors by the proposed method and another of the methods mentioned in the references. Otherwise, the work may go unnoticed and its benefits and limitations not completely understood".   The best for you,

 

Author Response

I followed your recommendation with some unavoidable limitation, which is now described in the Discussion section.
  As is clear, the new design requires Zijderveld diagrams  related to the processing of paleomagnetic data, but these details are not traditionally published.
  Also, a sufficient amount of primary paleomagnetic data is needed to compare the statistical efficiency of the proposed method and the traditional a95 method.

I fully agree that such a study is critical, which is why, as of today, I have gained access to a new, rather large, but as yet unpublished collection of lava flows from Chukotka region. My present research is being conducted in collaboration with the authors of this data. At present, the final statistical result and detailed description of the new collection have not been completed - many questions remain to be solved. Therefore, in the present publication I have outlined only the main directions of this comparative study without a precise description of the collection itself.

Reviewer 2 Report

Summary: I read the manuscript carefully, which concerns “The process of reconstructing the ancient magnetic field direction: a new approach to paleomagnetic data for a better

estimate of accuracy”

 In this study, The authors used data from the Zijderveld diagrams to provide a competing approach for statistically measuring the precision of the ancient field direction. The manuscript presents a significant potential to enhance the precision of paleomagnetic datasets. Instead, the well-known method a95 is used to evaluate the correctness of paleomagnetic data. This increase in accuracy will be crucial for understanding how the magnetic field changes over time; therefore it merits a thorough presentation.

 My document review revealed several English language issues, including a few small spelling mistakes, comments, and a conclusion. The manuscript's portions were not written in detail by the authors; for instance, the abstract is too brief, and ambiguous, and omits many of the study's conclusions. Also, the keywords is not long and do not present the working approach. Besides, the significance of applying the findings to future case studies to make them more engaging for readers was not mentioned.

To contribute significantly to the geophysical literature, the work, in particular, still needs significant changes., the paper still needs major revisions.

 

All my comments and more details included in the attached files

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!
Many thanks for the detailed list of the remarks -- I followed it step by step and hope  improved the clarity in general.
Abstract and keywords were improved along the lines that you suggested. Besides I worked together with native speaker and transformed the text in total according to his recommendations.
I fully agree that the comparative study of the proposed method and a95 is critical, however,  the new approach requires additional details related to the processing of paleomagnetic data but these  are not traditionally published.
Also, a sufficient amount of primary paleomagnetic data is needed to compare the statistical efficiency of  the new and  traditional  methods. In other words the new and  big enough collection of raw paleomagnetic 
data is needed for the convincing case study --
this is beyond the main topic of this short paper and will constitute the next publication.

 I have gained access to a new, rather large, but  yet unpublished collection of lava flows from Chukotka region.  My present research is being conducted in collaboration with the authors of this data. At present, the final statistical result and detailed description of the new collection have not yet been completed - many questions remain to be solved. Therefore, in the present publication I have outlined in 
''Discussion'' section only the main directions of this comparative study without a precise description of the data and results.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The idea of the manuscript is interesting and it is carried out properly with the given example.

 I have not many comments on the content, which I find apropriate.

However, I find that the discussion is focused on how this method could be introduced in other studies. Instead, I would prefer to see a more traditional discussion in which the authors describe the benefits of their methodology respect to the other traditional ones.

In a similar way, I do not see clear conclusions stated in the section.

Because of this, i would ask to review carefully the content of the section 5 to restructure its present content in other sections or widen the discussion to the above-mentioned questions.

Additionally,  I have noticed that some sentences are not correctly written.

In the paragraph below line 40, the sentennce:

"This the corresponding method a95 [5] relies on some assumptions about the statistical properties of a sample of directions."

In line 46 it seems that the hyperlink to the reference is no well implemented:

"Various software implements such data processing of the demagnetization paleomagnetic measurements and provides estimated values of MAD and Fisherian quantile angle a95 and corresponding cone axis, see, e.g. [PMGSC49 software, developed at the Geological Survey of Canada by R. Enkin], [4], [11].

 In line 53, the sentence:

 "In this new study, we will propose a way to identify outliers in the sample and at the same time construct confidence area (which is no longer circular cone) that localizes of the shared direction of the ancient field for a given set of specimens from a lava flow."

“of” needs to be removed.

In the title of table 2 there are two full-stop

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

Many thanks for the detailed list of the remarks -- I followed it and changed the text. Also I splitted the former section "Discussion and Conclusion" into two separated  sections so, that "Conclusion" section now is short and self-explained. Besides I worked together with native speaker and transformed the text according to his recommendations.
 
You wrote: 
"However, I find that the discussion is focused on how this method could be introduced in other studies. Instead, I would prefer to see a more traditional discussion in which the authors describe the benefits of their methodology respect to the other traditional ones."

I fully agree with this, but the only convincing argument  is the comparative study of the newly proposed  and traditional methods.
The new design requires additional details (Zijderveld plots )related to the processing of paleomagnetic data and these details are not traditionally published. Also, a sufficient amount of primary paleomagnetic data is needed to compare the statistical efficiency of 
the proposed method and the traditional a95 method. In other words the new, big enough collection of raw paleomagnetic 
data is needed for the convincing case study --
this is beyond the main scope of this short paper and will constitute the next publication.
I have gained access to a new, rather large, but  yet unpublished collection of lava flows from Chukotka region and now working 
 in collaboration with the authors of this data. At present, the final statistical result and detailed description of the new collection have not been completed - many questions remain to be solved. Therefore, in the present publication I have outlined in "Discussion" section only the main directions of this comparative study without a precise description of the collection itself.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have just finished reviewing the manuscript entitled “The process of reconstructing the ancient magnetic field direction: a new approach to paleomagnetic data for a better estimate of accuracy”

 I congratulate the authors on presenting an outstanding approach. For the reasons detailed below, I am delighted to suggest it for publication.

1) The authors correctly rectified the reviewers' suggestions, which enhanced the paper's quality.

2) Using data from Zijderveld diagrams, the authors provide an unique statistical procedure that can be used in future case studies to estimate the ancient field direction.

3) The figures are of excellent quality and aid in understanding the paper's context.

 

4) It should be obvious that increasing estimation accuracy is crucial for defining the magnetic field's evolution.

Best regards