Formation of the Granodiorite-Hosting Magushan Cu–Mo Polymetallic Deposit in Southern Anhui, Eastern China: Evidences from Geochronology and Geochemistry
and Jianshe Li 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors try to reveal the petrogenesis and tectonic significances the granodiorite and its relationship with the large-scale Cu–Mo mineralization by using geochronological and geochemical approaches. They concluded that that the Magushan high-K calc-alkaline I-types granodiorites associated with the Cu–Mo mineralization were originated from the partial melting of metasomatized enriched mantle-derived magmas mixing with Neoproterozoic crustal components. This interpretation is likely to be proper and their proposed tectonic model would be reasonable. All firgures are also well organized. Therefore I think that the manuscript is suitable to be published in this journal.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Comments: The authors try to reveal the petrogenesis and tectonic significances the granodiorite and its relationship with the large-scale Cu–Mo mineralization by using geochronological and geochemical approaches. They concluded that that the Magushan high-K calc-alkaline I-types granodiorites associated with the Cu–Mo mineralization were originated from the partial melting of metasomatized enriched mantle-derived magmas mixing with Neoproterozoic crustal components. This interpretation is likely to be proper and their proposed tectonic model would be reasonable. All firgures are also well organized. Therefore I think that the manuscript is suitable to be published in this journal.
Response: Thank you for this positive comment. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We tried our best to improve the English writing and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but remarked in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for review warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This ms presents key data on a newly discover deposit in this region.
There is considerable key data presented to support the model presented.
Ce/Ce* redox ref on zircon should be Smythe & Brenan (2016) now.
They really need a strong English author to read the manuscript before resubmission.
Also, there are numerous typos and poor formatting.
Check figures for typos.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Comments: This ms presents key data on a newly discover deposit in this region.
There is considerable key data presented to support the model presented.
Ce/Ce* redox ref on zircon should be Smythe & Brenan (2016) now.
They really need a strong English author to read the manuscript before resubmission.
Also, there are numerous typos and poor formatting.
Check figures for typos.
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for this constructive comment. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the comments are as following:
Point 1: Ce/Ce* redox ref on zircon should be Smythe & Brenan (2016) now.
Response 1: Thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. As reviewer suggested that Smythe & Brenan (2016) improved methods of calculate the Ce/Ce* redox ref on zircon, and we have studied methods carefully. However, this method relies heavily on the water content of magma, but the initial water content of the Magushan magma cannot be estimated, and the measured value cannot represent the initial water content of magma. In addition, owing to the late alteration, the water content of samples would be changed, so it cannot be calculated by method of Smythe & Brenan (2016).
References for this section:
Smythe, D.J., Brenan, J.M., 2016. Magmatic oxygen fugacity estimated using zircon-melt partitioning of cerium. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 453, 260-266.
Point 2: They really need a strong English author to read the manuscript before resubmission.
Response 2: Thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. It really true as reviewer mentioned that the poor English writing in the Ms. We tried our best to improve the English writing and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but remarked in red in revised paper.
Point 3: Also, there are numerous typos and poor formatting. Check figures for typos.
Response 3: Thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We are very sorry for our negligence of numerous typos and poor formatting. We have made correction in the manuscript carefully according to the reviewer’s suggestion. These changes remarked in red in revised paper. We went over all figures carefully and made a few changes, listed in Fig.1, Fig.2, Fig.4, Fig.5, Fig.8, Fig.9, Fig.10, Fig.12, Fig.13, Fig.14, Fig.15, and Table1.
Special thanks to you for your good comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper contains interesting analytical and geological data but they are not used at their whole potential. I suggest the paper to be send out to an professional English translator because the text is very difficult to read. probably, because of the poor English writing many phrases are confusing. Also, some words used in the text confuse the reader. Fortunately, the data are good and if the translation is improved, the article will be a nice contribution.
I suggest to use the Springer translation services if this journal does not have a division or people that offer these services..
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Comments: The paper contains interesting analytical and geological data but they are not used at their whole potential. I suggest the paper to be send out to an professional English translator because the text is very difficult to read. probably, because of the poor English writing many phrases are confusing. Also, some words used in the text confuse the reader. Fortunately, the data are good and if the translation is improved, the article will be a nice contribution.
I suggest to use the Springer translation services if this journal does not have a division or people that offer these services.
Response:
Thank you for this constructive comment. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. It really true as reviewer mentioned that the poor English writing in the manuscript. Considering the reviewer’s suggestion, we sent the manuscript to several native English speakers and made extensive changes in the manuscript. We tried our best to improve the English writing and contents of the paper. These changes will not influence the framework of the paper. And here we listed the main changes as follow:
1) We modified the abstract to make it more consistent with the research. You can find in Line 24-25, 30-32, 34-36.
2) We improved the expression and contents in the part “Introduction” and “Geological setting”, for better understanding of .The main changes in Line 61-63, 76-83, 100-104.
3) We made extensive changes in the part “4.1 Whole-rock geochemistry” and “4.2 Zircon U-Pb geochronology and trace elements” in the chapter of “4. Result”, for clearly presented the result of Data. You can find in Line 199-211, and Line 223-227.
4) The discussions about “petrogenesis” and “tectonic setting of magmatism and Cu-Mo mineralization” have been presented in the chapter “5 Discussion” of the revised manuscript with changes marked. The main changes in Line 291-294, 359-379, 422-431.
5) The conclusions would be reasonable and more convincing by simplifying and improving. The detailed revision in the Line 458-464.
In addition, we checked numerous typos and poor formatting in the Ms, Figs, and Table. And here we did not list the changes but you can find the detailed revision in the revised manuscript with changes marked.
We appreciate for review warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for considering my changes.
I have highlighted some issues for the editorial team.
This will be a nice contribution to Minerals.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The new version is improved and I congratulate the authors for the fast editing their paper. It contains a lot of interesting data and this new version of the manuscript present them very well.
