Dear Dr. Urbani,

Many thanks for your revised manuscript, which I am happy to recommend for acceptance pending two clarifications:

First, Lines 525-523: “some experiments (1-2 and 3-4) were replicated with the same imposed boundary conditions and show the same result, which ensures model reproducibility”. These additional experiments are a valuable addition to the paper, but the reader has little way of verifying the statement quoted above. One way of addressing this would be to refer to Figure 8, which shows dome diameter and apical depression width for both original and repeat experiments. Alternatively, or in addition, you could add a figure comparing key outcomes (e.g., the top view and cumulative vertical displacement) of the repeat experiments with the original ones.

The newly added conclusion “the relation that relates the magmatic source depth with the surface parameters of resurgent domes is independent by the source eccentricity, similarly to what already verified for sub-circular intrusions” is important; however, as written, is grammatically incorrect. Please rephrase.

Best regards,

Johan Lissenberg

Topical Editor

Dear Dr. Urbani,

Many thanks for your revised manuscript. I am satisfied that you have addressed the comments raised by the reviewers, as indicated before. However, looking at the manuscript as a whole, there are some issues with the level of English writing. We would request that you go through the manuscript once more to identify and address these issues, potentially with the help of a native English speaker. A clearly written paper will increase its impact, so hopefully this process will be helpful in the long run.

Best regards,

Johan Lissenberg

Dear Dr. Urbani,

Thank you for your revised submission. Having gone through the manuscript once more, I noticed that a number of grammatical issues remain, along with a few typos. These include the following:

L. 14: ‘69ka’
L. 17-18: ‘which 17 may represent also the local heat source(s).’
L. 19: ‘show that Los Potreros caldera floor’
L. 22-23: ‘consisting of magma intrusions 22 pushing a domed area developing an apical depression’
L. 24: what are ‘tested relations’? Please clarify and rephrase.
L. 29: ‘shallow (<1 km) multiple magma bodies’
L. 62: ‘are associated to’
L. 77: ‘This paper aims at’
L. 96: ‘39Ar/40Ar datings’
L. 217: ‘We present below a description’
L. 266: ‘all the experiments show’
L. 280-281: ‘pushed 280 downward the centre of the silicone that squeezed up at the edges of the cylinder’
L. 299: ‘floor,allow constraining’
L. 320: ‘In facts’
L. 341: ‘do not levelled out’
L. 341-342: ‘as it should be expected’
L. 354: ‘Neither the thermal anomalies identified by Norini et al. (2015) fit well’
L. 392: ‘similarly to what already verified for sub-circular intrusions’

Please correct these and any other remaining language issues. This should not be much work, but will help the readability of the paper.
Best regards,

Johan Lissenberg