An Enhanced Catalog of Repeating Earthquakes on the 1980 Irpinia Fault System, Southern Italy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper builds on a previously published study by the authors where they identified clusters of events along the Iripina fault in Italy. In the present paper, they use a well-established seismology software, EQcorrscan, to further identify additional events associated with the biggest cluster in their previous work using the template matching technique. From the final catalogue of 12 events, they calculate the cumulative slip on the asperity patch over time and attempt to make links to previous studies relevant to the Iripina fault zone.
Overall, the paper is well presented, the methods are scientifically sound and the results appear consistent with other studies. Minor edits and comments to improve the figures and text can be found in the annotated PDF attached. However, I note that the scope of the study and the conclusions that can be made are rather limited as they only focused on one cluster that had only 12 events. I would have liked to see the analyses expanded to include more clusters and/or more stations, to make the paper more impactful. Below are a few more general comments:
- As far as I understood, only one station from the "dense" ISNet network was used for template matching. The reason why only one station was used is unclear. Are the CC results consistent when using other stations that appear just as far as the reference one? It seems somewhat odd that the authors in the conclusion make a link to the benefit of dense networks when only one station was used in this study.
- In the methods, the authors describe a family of detections SET-A but they are never mentioned again and it is unclear why this dataset is described.
- Comparisons to geodetic data are made but it would be better presented along with the study's results in the figure 5 timeline, to see the consistencies.
- The authors want to extend the analysis in this paper to other clusters of seismicity. However, with only 12 events detected for the largest cluster of SET-CL, the authors could better explain what additional information can be gained on the Iripina fault's kinematics by extending their analysis to other clusters if there might be even less detections (and thus less robust local stress drop estimates).
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Only minor edits needed, see some edits in the attached PDF.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The spatio-temporal evolution of repeating earthquakes occurring over a segment of the Irpinia fault network in southern Italy was analyzed in this manuscript. The research idea is relatively clear, the structure is complete, and it has certain theoretical guiding value for the analysis of fault ground motion. However, there are still some problems that need to be revised before publication. Specific suggestions are as follows:
1. The abstract should be revised carefully. The passive voice should be used more often than "We" as the subject. In addition, please check the relevant grammar in the full manuscript.
2. The introduction needs to be simplified. Such as, the introduction of “Irpinia Seismic Network” can be merged with the previous paragraph. In addition, there is no summary of the shortcomings of the current research.
3. Was baseline adjustment carried out when the ground motion records were preprocessed? Please add explain.
4. The template matching technology EQCorrscan was used to extend the search for similar earthquakes. What are the advantages of this method compared to other methods?
5. Please redraw Figures 4, 5, and 6 to emphasize important parts.
6. There are too many words in the Section 4, so it is suggested to separate the discussion into one Section, and the conclusion is condensed into several points to be more concise and clear.
7. The number of references in recent three years is small, please supplement appropriately.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The expression of the manuscript does not conform to the expression of scientific research writing, and there are some grammatical errors. It is suggested to modify the whole manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have incorporated the corrections suggested. The Manuscript is now in the publishable form and may be accepted.
Author Response
We warmly thank the reviewer for his/her final comments. We have introduced minor changes in the new version of the manuscript to improve the clarity of the text thoroughly.
Kind regards
Mauro Palo
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Geosciences. Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
We warmly thank the reviewer for his/her final comments. In the new version of the manuscript we have introduced minor changes to improve the clarity of the text thoroughly.
Kind regards
Mauro Palo
