Articles | Volume 13, issue 1
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed underthe Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Structural complexities and tectonic barriers controlling recent seismic activity in the Pollino area (Calabria–Lucania, southern Italy) – constraints from stress inversion and 3D fault model building
- Final revised paper (published on 27 Jan 2022)
- Supplement to the final revised paper
- Preprint (discussion started on 11 Jun 2021)
- Supplement to the preprint
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor |
: Report abuse
RC1: 'Comment on se-2021-76', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Jul 2021
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Daniele Cirillo, 31 Aug 2021
RC2: 'Comment on se-2021-76', Barreca Giovanni, 18 Jul 2021
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Daniele Cirillo, 31 Aug 2021
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Daniele Cirillo on behalf of the Authors (13 Nov 2021)  Author's response Author's tracked changes
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (28 Nov 2021) by Massimiliano Porreca
AR by Daniele Cirillo on behalf of the Authors (03 Dec 2021)  Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (07 Dec 2021) by Massimiliano Porreca
ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (07 Dec 2021) by Federico Rossetti(Executive Editor)
AR by Daniele Cirillo on behalf of the Authors (10 Dec 2021)  Author's response Manuscript
The study is a compilation of data analysis and a huge collective effort of a large team on its own right. The manuscript handles and investigates the integration of field geology and high-resolution seismological data in order to reconstruct the 3D Fault Model of the sources which gave rise to the 2010-2014 Pollino seismic sequence and related aspects. However the manuscript is highly fragmented, and the unified scientific overall story and implication are quite weak for the journal publication. Furthermore, there are lots of inconsistent explanations with different scales that are hard to understand quantitatively. However, I advice Minor Correction and encourage the authors for a resubmission.
Hence, I think if the following sections of abstract/introduction/discussions/conclusions are written more succinctly and significantly improved in order to let the reader get all the salient facts, and I would have no problem in recommending publication but, as is, I think some minor/moderato revisions are in order to warrant its publication. The decision may be disappointing, but I do hope the authors can carefully address the comments and make the revised manuscript more concise, focused, and scientifically significant. Yet, to streamline the message, a lean and concise manuscript will benefit the potential future readers.