The paper by Olaiz et al presents a recopilation of a large quantityt of data, that will contribute to the understanding of the recent or rather present-day tectonics of Iberia (whether greater or not, I think that the term greater could be kept for the sector limited by the ancient plate boundaries, let's say the mid-Atlantic ridge on one side an Sicily-Calabria on the other). The selection of data is good and therefore I think that the discussion and conclusions presented are well founded on these data. The presentation is of very good quality, and all in all the paper will contribute to the knowledge of this particular sector, sometimes with controversial interpretations, of the European-African plate boundary. My only remarks are related to formal issues. These include  the use of toponyms that are of common knowledge for the researchers who work in the Iberian plate, but not for the rest. I do not know in which way they could be made undestandable (and localized for the whole scientific community. Maybe a table with the location of the different features referred to in the text or their location in the map. Another possibility is to reduce the number of geographical/geological names but this is not so good a solution, in my opinion.  Other minor issues are related to the use of Tertiary for Cenozoic of some gramatical or typographic errors (suggests in line 165, Gorring instead of Gorringe, etc...). I also suggest the authors to revise carefully the use of subscripts because sometimes the names of the stress axes and other variables are difficult to distinguish within the text.

The manuscript "Seismo-tectonics of Greater Iberia: An updated review" provides a comprehensive analysis of the seismo-tectonic characteristics and stress regimes in the Iberian Peninsula, based on an extensive compilation of 542 moment tensor focal mechanisms. The study employs various methodologies, including focal mechanism classification, stress inversion techniques, and Slip Model analyses to assess contemporary tectonic deformations and stress distributions. In conclusion, this updated review enhances knowledge about seismo-tectonics in Iberia by providing detailed insights into active stress regimes and their implications for seismic risk assessment in this geologically complex region.

This is an up to date seismic contribution to stress distribution in the Iberian peninsula and worth to be published.

I have annotated the manuscript by pen, hopefully the author can decipher my hand writing. Of course, there are some flaws, typos and use of "poor" english. Interestingly the quality varies during the manuscript, seems like different chapter have been writing by individual authors, and nor "stream-lining" has been carried out. This is a pity! As the quality of data and illustrations are excellent and clear.

Some more general comments:

"Greater Iberia" - is not existing. It´s short Iberia or Iberian Peninsula. Avoid that term. Iberia has 4 nations since more than 300 years, and nobody refers to Spain as "Smaller Iberia". 

Rock units are upper and lower, time (ages) is Early and Late. Correct this throughout the ms.

The introduction and objective chapter (1) needs to be re-written in terms of plate tectonics the review and status are sometimes not correct. Partly Iberia is considered as an individual plate (line 38), sometimes African Plate is Nubian Plate and v.v.  It should be consistent. If I wrote "ref" a reference is missing. The introduction needs a clear separation of plate tectonics and stresses induced by different sources.

Line 39: compression in Iberia started as early as Late Cretaceous (there is an old paper by - sorry by myself-  Reicherter and Pletsch, 2000, Terra Nova, already discussing this)

Line 61: seismic institutions? Better Seismic Obsersatories or Geophysical Institutes...

Line 69: SHmax should be written consistently in the ms.

Fig.1. Some structures are missing, Gafarillos Fault? Palomares Fault is cutting the Carboneras (better: the Carboneras Fault is ending at the Palomares). Why difference between Post-Orogenic and Late Miocene extension? It is basically in the Betics identical?

Line 99: 30 km focal depth means in the oceanic realm  --> it is in the mantle lithosphere?

Line 116: please sort like the discription before...

Figure 3: what about the gaps, in Mallorca or central Spain.

4 Tectonic zonation chapter: this can be organized better, some descriptions are missing

Table 4 and 5: descriptions are varying? Why? 

Line 394: In 5.5 El Camp Fault was already mentioned in 5.3? Reduce redudancy.

Line 420: sentence incomplete

Line 484 and others: N070°E-N090°E is rather bulky, why not N070-090°E much simpler and easy, and please consistent throughout the manuscript.

Line 499: I find the SVT here a bit displaced in your listing? It does not fit here.

Line 589: confusion 5.14 was already called WAA? Should be Granada Basin?

Chapter 5.15: I was wondering if the authors ignore geological work done? My own (sorry again, but this was the reason I reviewed the ms) work from 2005 (Reicherter and Peters Tectonophysics) already describes radial extension and a recent stress field including active faults. What about the Arenas de Rey earthquake 1884? This paragraph can be improved significantly. The intrabasinal deformation is compared with the margins of the GB different. Also the Jabaloy et al paper has not been considered. I know the paper are "old" but according to your new data, they already mentioned  several facts.

Line 739: remnant effect of the slab? This should be expleaind better and reference is missing? Is this really mechanically possible? Why 20 km depth? The earthquakes there (Malaga region) are usually much deeper? Is there mid-crustal detachment?

Line 832: "As it can been seen in Fig....." this is really poor English, and degrades the quality of the manuscript. This refers to the entire chapter 7 Discussion, please consider a re-writing, as the quality does not meet international standards.

Line 966 It should be chapter 8 Conclusions, not 7...

Fig. 15 - this is not an Alpine tectonic map of Iberia.... It is a map of recent stress in Iberia, please change text (Line 945) accordingly.

I didn´t check the references for completeness, this is editors work. Supplementary maps are very nice, but directly outline the problems: where there is no earthquake .... and especially for the GB I have major doubts, as marginal faults do not appear as seismically active.

I hope this review helps improving the manuscript, if you cannot decipher my hand-writing in the ms, let me know. Good luck.

Aachen, 25/3/2025 Prof. Klaus Reicherter

The manuscript by Olaiz et al. offers valuable insights into the seismotectonics of greater Iberia. The authors have compiled and analysed over 500 focal mechanism solutions to enhance the understanding of the region's active tectonics. While there are some typos and inconsistencies in acronym usage (e.g., SHmax) and figure references (e.g., "Fig." vs. "Figure"), these are minor issues likely to be addressed during the production stage. Overall, the manuscript is well-organized but would benefit from an additional round of English editing. Therefore, I recommend publication pending minor revision.

Some general comments

• A clearer explanation of the database would be helpful, particularly regarding how the authors identified and handled duplicate entries. While the highest %DC is mentioned, additional detail on the process would improve clarity.
• I feel the depth parameter was not thoroughly discussed across the different sections. For example, were there any observed changes in stress regime with depth? Also, I wasn't sure how depth was accounted for in Figure 3; was the map created using focal mechanism data? If so, how did you generate a map considering that focal mechanisms come from varying depths?
• A clearer explanation on your ‘re-evaluation’ for other stress data (inferred from WSM) would be great. Also, I think WSM has lots of stress inferred from focal mechanics solutions for this region. So, how did you deal with it as you also have a new comprehensive database of FMS.
• A supplement (or appendix) consisting of the details of 542 focal mechanics solutions would be great.

Detailed comments

• Line 90: use Geofon (GFZ-Potsdam) instead of GFZ-Potsdam.
• Line 99: Maybe show the Moho depth of the study area as a map?
• Line 113: It needs a sentence or two to explain what the Reches (1992) methos is known for and why did you prefer this method?
• Line 115: thrust or thrusting?
• Line 115-117: What about stress orientation?
• Why both 3.1 (line 118) and 3.2 (185) have the same title (i.e., kinematic analysis)?
• Line 185 to 190 needs at least reference as you are providing some info from the literature.
• Figure 3: What particular depth this map has been prepared for?
• Line 763: change ‘inver-sions’ with ‘inversions’.
• Figure 9: I see lots of SHmax orientations inferred from FMSs on this map. It would be great to clarify if there are new FMSs (based on your database) or if they were in the WSM database?
• Figure 15: it would be great to add a background (e.g., topography) and some names on the map for those who are not familiar with the area.