Geostatistical and Remote Sensing Studies to Identify High Metallogenic Potential Regions in the Kivi Area of Iran

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very good paper but needs moderate revision. Specific comments are below and numbers refer to line numbers in the manuscript.

41. Delete "and etc, as" and replace with "are"

43-50. Delete these sentences as they are poorly constructed.

52. Delete this sentence

54. What is "anomal"? Do you mean "with concentrations in stream sediments"?

55. Delete sentence

66. Delete "Materials". Rewrite sentence. Replace "is located" with "displays the Ardabil Province and the cities of ..."

65-127. Rewrite the entire Geological Setting which is poorly written. Consult someone with more detailed knowledge of the geology of your study area as this section is lacking adequate descriptions of all the rocks. What age are the Pre Cretaceous metamorphic rocks? What type of metamorphic rocks? Why aren't the Pre Cretaceous and Upper Cretaceous limestones shown in the Geological map of Figure 1. 

144-145. "Data" are plural not singular so an "outlier data is" not "a point" and you can't state that "An outlier data..." Outlier data are points (plural).

173. The data are analyzed or were analyzed, not "data is analyzed"

182. Replace with "The new data generated by"

202. does "is accurately possible" make sense?

226. Data are not

224-225. Explain this further. Does it relate to Figure 7 and Figure 8. If so, explain and refer to these figures.

229 and 232. "Table 3", not "the table 3"

234. Explain "their great difference" and rewrite this clearly

242-244. Explain the relationships. Don't use "etc." Either take the time to elaborate clearly or delete entirely.

277. Why "Communities"? Perhaps Domains? Areas of interest? Potential ore deposits?

344. MNF needs to be more fully developed. You show a colorful image but fail to describe its significance. So expand this discussion.

This is a very good paper but needs moderate rewriting. Avoid run on sentences, develop the geological setting, clearly explain "relationships" and don't use "etc" in your text.

Good luck

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your kindness.

We made all the changes according to your comments.

This paper has been revised with help of a native speaker. Some author's editorial corrections were made in text. The certificate is attached.

The MNF section has been removed due to your comment. Because this part had no effect on the conclusion.

Thank you very much.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editors and Authors,

This is a very immature contribution. The first fundamental problem is the quality of English that is inacceptable for international publication. Several professional terms are incorrectly translated, and many sentences are ill structured, making them incomprehensible. I am not sure whether it is entirely a problem of poor translation to English or the original text was inadequately written. Whatever the reason is the effect places the manuscript below the standards requested by Minerals. Furthermore, the partially incomprehensible text obscure the merit values of research presented.

The poor quality of English prevented me from reading the manuscript in full. However, I am not convinced whether the paper offers the science that is sound enough. Even from behind the obstacle of partly incomprehensible text some obvious weaknesses of the manuscript appear:

1. There are no raw geochemical data provided that were obtained from sediment samples.
2. The paper lacks a proper geological map with lithologies charted.
3. The quality of some figures is inacceptable.
4. The conclusions section reads as an executive summary of industrial project rather than outcomes of a research study.

Summing up, I believe that the Authors need a break to reconsider their approach and redo their contribution. The general scope of their paper would be suitable for Minerals, but the manuscript must be first reconsidered and rewritten.

I started to annotate the pdf copy of the manuscript but gave up after a few pages. I attach this partially commented file in case it can be of any use.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for your professional review and sorry for the initial part of the article which had many problems, especially in the geology setting section.

1. Необработанные геохимические данные, полученные из образцов донных отложений, отсутствуют.

Due to the large number of data , it is not possible to present raw data in the article. But we can send you all the raw data as an attachment and there is no problem in this regard. This data was collected by the Geological Survey of Iran (GSI).

2. В статье отсутствует надлежащая геологическая карта с нанесенными на нее литологиями.

According to your comment, we have insert a simplified geological map in the manuscript.

3. Качество некоторых цифр недостоверно.

All ultra-high quality images are available and will be submitted separately for editorial board.

4. Раздел "выводы" читается как резюме промышленного проекта, а не результаты исследовательского исследования.

According to the type of article and also the analyzes performed, it can be said that the conclusion is a combination of research and industrial results.

Regarding the English language structure, this article was read carefully and all the highlighted corrections was reviewed. Native speakers who helped improve grammar and phrasing edited the manuscript in English. The certificate is attached. The geological setting section was also inspected and corrections were applied. However, this part has been the result of studies by the Geological Survey of Iran (GSI).

Reviewer 3 Report

minerals-921849

Abstract:

The first five lines of the Abstract are not necessary and should be removed. Here, the authors describe the area and some tools in general while they should be clarified in other sections.

Line 39: check punctuation. Lines 47-50: Incomplete statement.

Lines 51-52: Not good identification for an area.

Line 53: Change “were selected” to “are selected”. Apply this rule for the rest, if any, in the Introduction section. It seems you are discussing the Methods, not the Introduction!

 

Overall, the introduction section needs to be most improved. The main aim of the study is not clear to the reader. Instead, the authors partially put the objectives in the Abstract section, which is not correct.

 

Line 66: Delete “materials”.

Line 70: slope or slopes?

Lines 73-76: it does not look to be a good description of a geological stage and formation in an area. Revise it.

Lines 77-78: Incomplete statement.

Line 130: A brief and exact explanation should be provided in the Introduction section about “Stream sediment sampling”.

 

Sub-section 3.1.2: it does not make sense at the current explanation. Needs to be revised. Other parts such as 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 also represent a different scheme to readers concerning the content that it seems authors are talking about another project, not this study! It is recommended to re-arrange these parts that show the authors apply the methods here. FYI: refer to 3.2.1 Lines 205-206.

Authors should be clarified what is/are the reason(s) to red-highlighted Principal Components?

Overall, the manuscript needs to be refined in terms of syntax and punctuation. E.g.: Lines: 39, 66, 47-50, 77, 78, 254,…

 

 

Author Response

Thanks for your careful look at the manuscript.

Native speakers who helped improve grammar and phrasing edited the manuscript in English. The certificate is attached.

All changes were made to the best of our ability.

Regarding the methods, it should be said that each study is done by a series of methods that can not really be changed. These methods are the basis of the article. We tried to explain these methods in simple language to the readers and use a combination of methods to achieve more accuracy and innovation.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors & Editors,

I have read through the revised version of the manuscript. A big progress has been done. The present manuscript is one order of magnitude better than the previous one.

 

I have to admit that my first review was probably too harsh. I was not able to follow your reasoning because of poor quality of writing that made me annoyed and frustrated. With the current version, I was able to appreciate the science behind the manuscript. This was probably alright from the beginning but poorly articulated. This is good that the second reviewer gave you a chance to improve your work.

Now, having clear conscience, I can recommend publication of your paper. Not to be entirely positive, I still think that there is an issue with the quality of Figures 11 and 12. They are very faint. I am aware that these are scanned outputs of some software. When compiling a final version of your paper, please use some tricks to make these print outs better quality.

Your cover letter is partly in Russian. How did you know that I speak this language?

 

Best regards