A Geo-Itinerary to Foster Sustainable Tourism in West African Islands: Storytelling the Evolution of the Ancient Cameroon Volcanic Line Coral Reefs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully read the paper and I believe that the authors have addressed all the comments from the reviewers. the manuscript is an a form that can be published without any other revision. 

Overall, my suggestion is that the paper should be accepted for publication in present form. 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript can be published in the present form.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting and well structured. I have no major objections regarding content and soundness of text in the subjected manuscript. Materials and methods are defined clearly and appropriately applied. Discussion and Conclusions are correct and supported by the results. Associated graphics is of good quality and supportive for text. References are correctly applied. I found this manuscript can be accepted and published in the present form in Sustainability journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The document is of interest and may have great potential for a scientific contribution.

However, it is not possible to clearly understand the contribution of the work (it is more a reflection on theories and not on scientific processing that can be replicated).

Once the document has been reviewed, it is recommended:

1. Clearly define the research question and objectives

2. Specifically indicate the methodology, specifically the methodological analysis processes for interpretation of bathymetric data, image analysis

3. The results show data that is not explained in the methodological process (interpretation of thin slices, correlation of eustatic sea niveldata with various sources of information), among others.

4. With the above, substantiate what the original authors did and what data sources they consulted for the presentation of results and discussion.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully read the paper and I believe that it needs a revision concerning the main research questions, the methodology followed and the general structure. The amount of research in this paper is minimal. The methodology only refers to the collection of bathymetric data from online sources which are not presented in an analytical and clear way (e.g. through GIS environment) and some thin sections which are not included in the methodology. The geomorphological analysis is superficial and have been done in a general way. Although the state of the art is presented clearly and the authors did an excellent bibliographical review, the research part of the article is missing or it is underrepresented.

The figures are not very clear regarding the depiction of the evolution of the riffs and significant changes must be done. The conclusions of the authors are based on the bibliography and although it is stated that the geomorphological features have been analyzed, this cannot be found anywhere in the text.

The main idea of the article, to use the linear chain of volcanic islands within the offshore of the VLC as an educational resource and a geotouristic product in order to raise the awareness and the capacity of the local authorities and people is quite important and relevant to the general actions of the scientific community. Stated that, I believe that the subject of the article is very significant and the authors should review their work in order to have greater impact.

For specific comments, please refer in the manuscript.

Overall, my suggestion is that the paper should be rejected, reviewed by the authors and resubmitted.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language