This is interesting contribution focused on detailed analysis of how active inversion tectonics might have influenced sedimentation within the SE segment of the Polish Basin, along the border of the Mid-Polish Anticlinorium. Authors used diverse set of data and multiple lines of evidences – sedimentological evidences, heavy mineral studies, geochemistry, palynology - to construct their model. As such, this manuscript seems to be very relevant to the Solid Earth Special Issue on inversion tectonics. There are however several aspects of this contribution that could be improved, and I’d like to strongly encourage the Authors to invest some extra time and effort so their paper would be substantially – in my opinion at least - improved.

 Thank you!

In chapter 1 (Introduction), I’d suggest adding: 

1. short overview of various aspects of syn-kinematic sedimentation during basin inversion;

We are currently placing such an overview into the original manuscript; additionally, we followed more detailed recommendations given in the attached annotated pdf file.

1. short description of Late Cretaceous inversion tectonics in Europe (structural style, timing);

As above, we are currently doing this. A short description will be provieded in the final version of the manuscript.

1. a brief summary of Late Cretaceous paleobathymetry, climate etc. – i.e. all the parameters that, apart from tectonic processes, might have also influenced depositional systems;

According to some additional comments, all these issues are provided and discussed in the final version of the manuscript.

In Chapter 2 (State of the art – a short story of the two contrasting theories) more detailed presentation of the previously formulated opinions on inversion of the Polish Basin, in particular its SE part, would be needed to provide international readership better insight into this important scientific discussion on one of the key processes that shaped present-day structure of this part of Europe.

Done. We have followed Referee’s general and detailed recommendations (including those provided in the annotated pdf) and provided a more detailed discussion concerning the previous opinions on the inversion of the Polish Basin.

Chapter 6 (Interpretation and discussion) would benefit from discussion of syn-inversion sedimentation in other parts of the Polish Basin and in other parts of the Central European Basin System and its comparison to the model proposed for the Roztocze region.

Such a discussion is provided in the final version of the manuscript, and the Roztocze region has been compared to other parts of the Polish Basin as well as to the selected examples from CEBS. Thank you for the very useful comments on the annotated pdf file.

Other, much more detailed recommendations regarding text (both its structure as well as content) and figures are given in the attached annotated pdf file.

Thank you for the annotated pdf file – it was very useful while preparing the final version of the manuscript.

The manuscript entitled “Deep vs shallow – two contrasting theories? A tectonically activated Late Cretaceous deltaic system in the axial part of the Danish-Polish Trough; a case study from SE Poland” by Zbyszek Remin, Michał Cyglicki and Mariusz Niechwedowicz contains valuable sedimentological, palynofacies, and heavy mineral data from the Szozdy section, Roztocze Hills in SE Poland.

The arguments presented by the authors to prove a shallow, cyclic marine sedimentation in the middle Campanian in SE Poland seem to be of significant importance for further investigations of the Upper Cretaceous succession in the area in terms of facies and bathymetric interpretations. The palaeotectonic model proposed by the authors constitutes good basis for these interpretations. It is worth emphasizing here that the delta system proposed in the manuscript is located in the area which, according to previous interpretations, was the axial and at the same time the most subsiding (and ?deepest) part of the Danish-Polish basin. The manuscript represents a substantial contribution to the scientific progress within the scope of Upper Cretaceous research, including the study of the Late Cretaceous inversion tectonics in SE part of the Trans-European sedimentary basin, i.e. the Danish-Polish Trough. At the whole, I agree with the presented interpretations and, consequently, I recommend accepting the manuscript for publication in Solid Earth Special Issue: Inversion tectonics – 30 years later; however, with necessary corrections (moderate revision).

Thank you for all these comments.

My main comments refer to Chapter 4: Material and Methods: I would suggest more complete description of the methods used. Particularly, the description of sedimentological and heavy mineral analyses is far too incomplete.  Further suggestions for improvements are contained directly on the manuscript file.

We have added several information to Chapter 4 as suggested by the Referee (including those provided in the annotated pdf). Now they are more complete and more logical according to the suggestion of the Referee.

The manuscript is quite messy in terms of text, editorials and organization. The entire text (body text, references and figure captions) requires careful editing by a native speaker.

Indeed the Referee provided several editorials corrections. All these comments and corrections were accepted by us and were corrected according to the journal’s rules.

Additionally the manuscript was corrected by the native speaker.

The editorials which can easily be corrected by the authors are the following:

(1) Citations order in the text: do this chronologically or alphabetically, but be consistent; Done.

(2) Figure captions: adjust according to the journal authors’ guideline. Done.

(3) Complete the missing or remove the unnecessary references:  11 references from the Reference list were not used in the text, and six references appearing in the text were not included in the References list. Please follow the Journal style of the References list and use an appropriate order. I am not sure if Papers with the status ‘in prep.’ should be included. Done.

(4) Use British English or US English, be consistent. Done.

Further editorial corrections and suggestions for modifications are indicated directly in the manuscript file. Thank you for all the editorial corrections.

I ike the paper very much, because a new inversion structure was discovered - with really good arguments.

Thank you.

Is would suggest, to separate the interpretation of facies from the provenance chapter. This is too much and not necessary; additionally not well-supported by data.

This is done to make the paper more reader-friendly. We even considered skipping some provenance data as suggested by the Reviewer – indeed they start a completely new story and are not so necessary for the general output and the present manuscript.

Please add some general notes to the basin which starts to my knowledge not with the Campanian...

It is done – such informations are provided in the final version. Similar comments were provided by Anonymous Referee so these comments are conspecific and necessary information is already added.

figures are nice; the last figure should be polished, because the distribution of land and sea is not in a modern way.

It is done.

The english is good from my (German) side, I found only few mistakes, but the paper will be checked finally by an english expert.

In any way the manuscript was corrected by the native speaker – Jordan Todes (University of Chicago).

Interpretation of the depositional environment is to much focused on a delta. I would suggest to take also a normal shelf environment into consideration.

We accept this suggestion and in the discussion part we provided additional data and other opportunities – not only delta but also the comparison is made to some near-shore or shelf-type deposits.

We have also addressed all additional, more precise suggestions provided in the annotated pdf.