I find the revised manuscript acceptable for publication in Solid Earth

General comments:
I have now had a look at the ms in my role of Executive Editor. While I see potential to get the ms to a standard that is acceptable for publication in Solid Earth, I consider the current version in need of further revision.


My main concern lies with the presentation of the ms.
The writing must be significantly improved to enhance the clarity of the scientific narrative. The text currently suffers from far too many grammatical and syntax errors to be considered for final publication. Overall, the narrative is rather wordy and I suspect the text can be shortened significantly as a result of more cogent writing style.

Often the wordiness results in unnecessary repetition that distracts the reader from the core message of the paper. There are several instances in ms that are ok for presentation as part of a student thesis but they have no room in a scientific publication.

There are several paragraphs where better clarity is needed in the writing and I have highlighted these below.


In addition, several terms are used that do not really exist in the context of scientific English writing.


The conclusions need a complete overhaul of language and content. A statement such as "This means that any overpressure created by input of new magma is adjusted within the feeding system, sometimes triggering eruptions" is too trivial to be of any use. What you are stating is the principle model behind how to explain volcanism.

In summary, the ms needs substantial overhauling of its scientific writing, grammar and syntax. Ideally you will employ the help of a native speaker or language editing services for the final submission. My list of recommended corrections to the writing is not exhaustive.





l20: since they are capable
l 87-94: The entire paragraph is confusing, mostly because of poor writing. The syntax is extremely wordy and the content in parts repetitive. I suggest to completely overhaul the paragraph and focus on a better link with the previous paragraph. You also use geophysical observations a model constraints and these are not mentioned in these paragraph.

l116: ground displacement is a vector field so "amount" is the wrong word here, pls use magnitude.


l323: you must state that you follow the geological convention in denoting principal stresses where sigma 1 is the greatest compressive stress and sigma 3 is the least compressive stress


l331: A very confusing sentence. You state "the need to adopt more realistic geometries" but it is not clear of what. Plumbing systems? Magma pathways? "Although, for decades," what does that mean? Which decades; since when? "Easiness" is the wrong word here.


l355-8: ok with student thesis but obsolete for scientific publication

l427 Gravitational modelling using the inferred geology of the feeder system. Use the term feeder system throughout

l439: overpressurised with respect to what? you need to make some of the concepts clear at outset eg l 32. use concepts developed in the literature. Over vs excess pressure. See works by Gudmundsson

l470: why is there a -sign?


501: extensional field stress??? what is this. extensional stress


l535-547: the paragraphs do not make a lot of sense. The writing is very unclear. You state that "Beside and beyond the results obtained by analysing the influence of detailing geological and geophysical data, " do you mean detailed geological and geophysical data: how can data be detailed? information can be crude or detailed. Where in the study do you compare the results of simplistic models with the results of your more sophisticated models?



I expect to receive a revised manuscript incl tracked changes and comments on the issues raised in this letter.


With best wishes,
J. Gottsmann
Executive Editor SE

Dear Authors,

I have had a look at your revised ms. I am sorry to report that the language issue is far from being resolved. To give an example, the first few sentences of the abstract are full of syntax and grammatical errors and hard to follow.
I hence have to assume that you have not taken my earlier recommendation seriously.

I am giving you one more chance to revise the ms according to my earlier recommendations regarding the use of English. You should consider having the ms proof read by a native speaker or professional editing services.


Should I find the next (third) revision not according to the Journal's publication standards, I will not hesitate to reject the paper altogether.

With best wishes,
Jo Gottsmann
Executive Editor SE

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the revision of your manuscript. I have now had a detailed look at the final version. In principle I am happy to accept the ms for publication, but note that there are still a couple of issues to resolve which I deem technical corrections. I have highlighted the problems in the attached pdf. They should be self-explanatory.

The concluding paragraph still includes problematic phrasing and appears to have evaded proper editing by the language services perhaps due to the editing being undertaken by a non-expert in geosciences.

I am taking the liberty to suggest the following edits:

l459 : The complete emptying of the upper conduit and part of the shallow magma chamber has in the past led to sub-Plinian and Plinian eruptions. This process permits the restoration of the stress arch and maintains a stable subsurface stress configuration.


Also, pls note that Bunney (2014) is not a PhD thesis, but rather a MSc thesis submitted to the University of Bristol. The thesis has not undergone peer-review. I suggest to cite the following peer-reviewed paper co-authored by Sarah Bunney which incorporates findings from her MSc research:

Coco, A., J. Gottsmann, F. Whitaker, A. C. Rust, G. Currenti, A. Jasim and S. Bunney (2016). "Numerical models for ground deformation and gravity changes during volcanic unrest: simulating the hydrothermal system dynamics of an active caldera." Solid Earth 7: 1-21, 10.5194/se-5197-5191-2016.

See above