Dear authors,

I am happy to get back to you with more information on your manuscript. I have now received a recommendation from two reviewers: a first reviewer who evaluated the earlier version of your discussion paper, and a second external reviewer who read through the manuscripts, all reviews, comments and replies. Their reviews are attached for your reference.

Based on the comments, I find that your manuscript may be suitable for publication after revisions.

1. To quote reviewer 2: "the manuscript fails to establish an intellectual framework for the work". This comment was already raised in the discussion phase, and reviewer#2 suggests a possible way to sharpen the focus of the paper in the introduction.

2. The chronology of the Domata fan units as presented in the paper is challenged by the comments from Gallen and Wegmann. Their viewpoint and arguments need to be addressed in the paper.

3. Given the uncertainty on the age estimates, reviewer#2 suggests to "calculate minimum ages". The minimum age components can then be used in the discussion.

In addition, there are a number of specific points in each review that should be addressed.


I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript,

With kind regards,
Veerle Vanacker

Dear authors,

I appreciate your effort in revising the manuscript, figures and tables based on the last comments made by Mark Brandon.

The data that are presented in your paper will nicely contribute to the ongoing debate on climatic and tectonic forcing of landscape evolution in the Mediterranean.

With kind regards,
Veerle Vanacker
Associate editor - ESurf

Dear Vasiliki,

Thank you for revising your final manuscript. I am very pleased to accept it for publication in ESurf and thank you for submitting your work to us, and for your effort to address the reviews.

Best regards
Frederic