Dear Markus,
Dear co-authors

I have finally got a reply, by eMail, from the Anonymous Referee #2 from the
first, public review round, who had recommended to reconsider your manuscript
after major revision, and whom I had asked for a review of your revised
manuscript:
> Dear Guy,
>
> I'm writing you through email because I did not find a way to submit my review on the website.
>
> I carefully checked the rebuttal provided by Adloff et al., GMD 2020 233). I think the authors have done a careful review of their manuscript, answering part of my questions, and adding more discussions in their revised version for the unsolved questions.
>
> I think it can be published as it is now.
>
> Best
>
>
> [Name deleted].

Due to the very summary nature of that report, and since I had already spotted
a few problems here and there, I decided to give your manuscript an additional
editorial review.

After having finished my reading of your paper, which, unfortunately, took more
than a couple of days - please accept my apologies for the resulting delay -
I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript is now essentially acceptable
for publication in Geoscientific Model Development, *provided the following
issue is resolved*:


Code availability section:
==========================
The DOIs provided to the code archive are only place holders and have to be
replaced by the actual ones. Please notice that we prefer that authors to
give the references to the code in form of a citations
- see https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/submission.html
- "Prepare your Assets" - "Software and model code". References include
more information than the bare DOIs and may thus be helpful in case the
DOIs have errors. Reference to a code can be included as a BibTeX @Misc
entry, if you use BibTeX. Zenodo allows you to generate such a reference
(please start typing "Copernicus Publications", without the quotes, as the
citation style into the citation style search field, currently in the
right-hand column in the "Share/Cite as" box close to the bottom), then click
on "BibTeX" in the "Export" box below and download the citation, where it is
sufficient to replace the @Software type by @Misc - @Software is not yet
supported by our bibstyle). This way, the citations of your code will be kept
updated on the Zenodo page.



In addition, I have a list of technical issues as well -- see list below. The
list is rather long, and it is probable that I have overlooked some problems.
Please re-read your manuscript or have it re-read and also take into account
the style requirements laid out in the submission guidelines, under
https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/submission.html


Although most of the remaining problems are of technical nature, I have to flag
my decision as "Accept subject to minor revision (editor review)" because
of the incomplete code availability information - which I must be able to
verify upon correction.


Thank you again for choosing Geoscientific Model Development for publishing
your model developments.


Best wishes,

Guy Munhoven



Technical comments
==================

Throughout: "n yrs" should read "nn yr" (units never take a plural 's') or
write out "years".

Throughout: "von Strandmann" should read "Pogge from Strandmann" (the family
name is "Pogge von Strandmann" - one of your co-authors ...)


p. 2, l. 20: "having become" or "becoming" instead of "have becoming"

p. 2, l. 21: "under under" should read "under"

p. 3, l. 10: "3 - 4" should read "three to four" (write out numerals lower than 10)

p. 3., l. 22: "Hodell et al. (1989) estimate" (not "estimates")

p. 3., l. 26: Strange sentence construction ("although" does not make sense here).

p. 5, l. 10: "although" does not make sense here either (this means "obwohl" in German). Perhaps simply split the sentence here, or replace by "and" or "and accordingly"

p. 6, ll. 26/267: "Hathorne and James (2006)" should read "(Hathorne and James, 2006)"

p. 10, ll. 301/31: why not "in ^7Li" instead of "in isotopically heavy Li" ?

p. 12, l. 4: "as well a" should read "as well as a"

p. 21, l. 2: "too big" would better read "too large"

p. 22, l. 21 "(see figures B6b)" should probably read "(see Fig. B6)" as there is no Fig. B6b - well there are two panels in Fig. B6, but they are not labelled.

p. 25, ll. 2/3: "with tuned and un-tuned marine Sr reservoir": missing article "with the tuned and the un-tuned ..." or use plural for "reservoir" or reformulate.

p. 28, l. 15: "ceased" should read "ceases" - the rest of the sentence is in the present tense.



Table 5: References for NBS987 and L-SVEC ?

The reported ^88Sr/^86Sr is not the value certified for NBS987 which is
8.37861 +/- 0.00325 (see https://www-s.nist.gov/srmors/certificates/987.pdf,
ref.: L. J. Moore, Murphy, T. J., Barnes, I. L., Paulsen, P. J. Absolute
Isotopic Abundance Ratios and Atomic Weight of a Reference Sample of Strontium,
Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, 87(1):1-8, 1982,
doi:10.6028/jres.087.001) The figure cited is, as far as I know, that of the
Eimer and Amend standard (Nier, A.O. The Isotopic Constitution of Strontium,
Barium, Bismuth, Thallium, and Mercury. Phys. Rev. 54(4):275-278, 1938,
doi:10.1103/PhysRev.54.275). 8.375209 is the inverse of 0.1194, i.e.,
the ^86Sr/^88Sr ratio most often used to normalise ^87Sr/^86Sr ratios,
and that 0.1194 is generally said to derive from Nier (1938).
Perhaps unimportant, but nevertheless incorrect and thus confusing.
Pleaseck and correct.


Figs. 1, 2, 7, B1:
please notice that we recommend not to use green and red/orange colours in
parallel on a graph (see https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/submission.html - "Figures & Tables", point 7)



Bibliography:
It is sufficient to provide either URL or DOI, the more since both are often
duplicates of each other. As URLs are at the discretion of the publisher and
may thus change at any time, it is best to resort to DOIs.

p. 49, l. 20: "Earth and planetary science letters" should read "Earth and Planetary Science Letters"

p. 50, ll. 5-6: The DOI for Broecker and Peng is bogus - please discard.
You may provide the following, currently valid, URL:
https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~broecker/Home_files/TracersInTheSea_searchable.pdf
Notice, however, the volatility of URLs ...

p. 51, l. 12: "von Strandmann, P. A. P." should read "Pogge von Strandmann, P. A."

p. 51, ll.15-16: "Reviews in mineralogy and geochemistry" should read "Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry"

p. 51, l. 18: "Geochimica et cosmochimica acta" should read "Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta"

p. 52, l. 28: in Gehler et al.: "CO2" should have the '2' in index position.

p. 52, l. 35: "my" does not make sense as 'm' would mean 'milli' - use either "My" (best) or "MY"

p. 52, l. 36: "American journal of Science" should read "American Journal of Science"

p. 53, l. 6: "von Strandmann, P. A. P." should read "Pogge von Strandmann, P. A."

p. 54, l. 32: idem

p. 55, l. 3: the '7' of δ7Li should be in exponent position

p. 55, l. 29: full list of authors required.

p. 57, l. 12: "von Strandmann, P. A. P." should read "Pogge von Strandmann, P. A."

p. 58, l. 10: idem

p. 60, l. 17: "Geochimica et cosmochimica acta" should read "Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta"

p. 60, ll. 26-27: reference Talley (2002) is incomplete (this is in the Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change, Volume 1, The Earth System: Physical and Chemical Dimensions of Global Environmental Change) which has editors, a publisher etc. ... please complete.

p. 61, l. 25: erroneous and incomplete reference ("von Strandmann" should read "Pogge von Strandmann"; only initials for the names ...) please correct and complete

Dear Markus and co-authors

I have gone through your revised manuscript. The code availability section
is now complete as I have been able to verify and the other minor points
corrected. I appreciate that you have taken the opportunity to make the
manuscript more readable for the larger community (explaining jargon, etc.).


I am pleased to inform you that I accept your manuscript for publication
subject to technical corrections (see list below).


Thank you again for choosing Geoscientific Model Development for publishing
your model developments.

Best regards,

Guy Munhoven



Technical corrections
---------------------

p. 3, l. 8: "three – four" should read "three to four" [my earlier comment was not sufficiently precise - sorry]

p. 4, l. 8: either delete comma after "values" or add comma before "together"

p. 5, l. 21: idem

p. 6., ll. 13-14: check sentence construction: "... with the isotopic composition of Li is expressed as" does not some correct.
Perhaps split in two by deleting "with" and restarting with "The isotopic ..."

p. 6, l. 27: either delete comma after "values" or add comma before "together"

p. 8, l. 7: idem

p. 9 entirely blank ?

p. 11, l. 25: "However, n combination" should read "However, in combination"

p. 14, l. 17: "Becasue" should read "Because"

p. 16, l. 17: "account" should read "accounted"

p. 17, ll. 19-20: "although currently this requires" should read "although this currently requires"

p. 18, ll. 6-7: check sentence(s) construction. Missing closing parenthesis after "(see SI D" ? Spurious parenthesis after "1988)" ?

Legends to Figs. B4, B5, B7, B8: Salinity does not have any units - please discard PSU.

Legend to Fig. B3: is the salinity of 34.903495 for the normalisation here still correct?
Not sure that salinity can be measured to that degree of precision though.