Depositional Setting, Diagenetic Processes, and Pressure Solution-Assisted Compaction of Mesozoic Platform Carbonates, Southern Apennines, Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is well structured and interesting. Although I am not an expert in English grammar, I suggest that the authors review the grammar and modify some sentences which, in my opinion, are complex to understand.

On the other hand, they should review the format of the references, as some of them are incompletely or incorrectly formatted.

In the attached pdf document, I have highlighted some aspects that should be considered for modification.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please find the attached annotated file for detailed comments. some of the key suggestions are as follows:

Title of the manuscript

1. Revise the title as it contains similarity index and brief the title by mentioning Mesozoic Carbonate Platform, Southern Apennines Fold, and Thrust Belt, Italy

Abstract section

2. Lines 13-16 complex sentence structure. revise the statement in the abstract section.

3. mention the research gap or problem statement of the study in the abstract section

4. Lines 21-22: exclude this statement as a literature review and generalized statements should not be included in the abstract section

5. include the outcome and the application of the study at the end of the abstract section.

Introduction section

6. rephrase the statement with the significance of diagenetic evolution in carbonates and how it influences the reservoir characterization with the recent literature:

Sedimentary facies, diagenetic analysis, and sequence stratigraphic control on reservoir evaluation of eocene sakesar limestone, upper indus basin, NW himalayas. Carbonates and Evaporites 39, 15. doi:10.1007/s13146-024-00947-4

Discuss the stylolites and their impact on diagenetic evolution with the relevant literature.

Geological setting section

7. highly complex and unclear figure. redraw the figures and vertically place them for clarity. legends font size is not visible. a global map should be included for a regional overview.

Methods section

8. divide the methods section into multiple subsections for field analysis, microfacies analysis or petrographic investigations, cathode luminescence, 

Results section

9. Figure 2: The sedimentary log is very vague and unclear, reivise the sedimentary log with various colors for lithology and field structures/features.

10. Figure 2: the scale of microphotographs and the features observed in the images are not clear. split the figure to show the microimages separately.

11. Figures 3 b and d part are not clear and don't show any features or details, revise or replace the images and label them for clarity

12. Figure 6: label the field images and the place where the samples were taken for microphotography. separate the microphotographs and label them with features.

Discussion section

13. Include a depositional model in the discussion section to show the distribution and diagenetic evolution.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have considerably revised the manuscript. However, the following revisions have not yet been incorporated to the revised version. Kindly revise thoroughly and include all the suggestions

Methods section

1. divide the methods section into multiple subsections for field analysis, microfacies analysis or petrographic investigations, cathode luminescence, 

Results section

2. Figure 2: The sedimentary log is very vague and unclear, reivise the sedimentary log with various colors for lithology and field structures/features.

3. Figure 2: the scale of microphotographs and the features observed in the images are not clear. split the figure to show the microimages separately.

4. Figures 3 b and d part are not clear and don't show any features or details, revise or replace the images and label them for clarity

5. Figure 6: label the field images and the place where the samples were taken for microphotography. separate the microphotographs and label them with features.

Discussion section

7. Include a depositional model in the discussion section to show the distribution and diagenetic evolution.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have considerably revised the manuscript. However, a few suggestions to improve the quality of the manuscript are as follows:

1. add the keywords: "marine platform deposition; microfacies analysis".

Introduction section 

2. Lines 35-37: add the relevant citation regarding the diagenesis of carbonates in the introduction section: Khitab et al., 2020. Microfacies, diagenesis and hydrocarbon potential of Eocene carbonate strata in Pakistan. Carbonates and Evaporites 35, 70. doi:10.1007/s13146-020-00601-9

Geological setting section

3. Figure 1: add the global map to show the regional location of the study area.

Methods section

4. add the relevant citation for subsection 3.3 Cathodoluminescence observations.

Results section:

5. add the images and description of stylolites observed during the fieldwork 

Discussion section

6. subdivide subsection 5.2 diagenetic evolution to mention the cementation, rock texture, and microfacies influence. 

 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf