Dear Dr. Colleoni and co-authors,

After two very positive reviews and your responses and changes, I am happy to recommend your work for publication in GMD, following minor revisions based around the comments that I leave below:

1. The name of the software. I note your "backtracking" vs. "backstripping" argument -- something that is new to me -- and happily defer to your expertise here. However, this naming seems a bit incongruent with the name of the software ("PALEOSTRIP"). I imagine that backstripping is a more well known procedure... perhaps this is the reason for the name? And might you consider changing it to better match what the software does?

2. "Scattered data". You answered the referee's comment in the response, but I think that it would be better to also make the text a bit clearer in this regard.

3. "Note that inputs of dynamic topography require some post-processing to be adjusted to the area of interest before being passed through the GUI."
Is this just ensuring that the dynamic topography inputs are aligned and clipped to the model domain and cell size. If so, this seems trivial (so maybe no need to mention), but perhaps you could make it more clear (to me "some post processing" may imply vague additional changes that need to be made).

4. It could be helpful to include a table of suggested standard lithological parameters.

5. Both referees mention erosion and re-sedimentation. I understand that PALEOSTRIP does not at present include these. However, this seems a bit incompatible with your Ross Sea example. How would you propose to address this?

6. You should remove the mentions of new releases: We cannot see the future.

7. I might suggest including a bit about the definition and importance of backtracking to recover paleobathymetries in the abstract/introduction. This might be very helpful towards engaging readers who are interested in the problems that you address but who may be earlier in their careers / coming from different backgrounds, and who therefore do not yet know the vocabulary.

8. I would suggest changing your GitHub repository naming/versioning structure. GitHub repositories are for a piece of code, whereas the releases (which can be integrated with Zenodo to provide automated doi tagging) are for the versions. Of course, I can't require this as a journal editor, but I would recommend it as good coding practice.

9. Noting that a colorblind-unfriendly color scale is "the PALEOSTRIP default colorscale" is not a rebuttal, but rather an admission of a flaw in the accesibility of the software. Surely there should be a simple way to replace this wtih any number of other color scales? Perhaps this may help: https://www.fabiocrameri.ch/colourmaps/

10. Diemsnions. Considering that 1D is a line and 2D is a plane, mathematically, I think that your 2D/3D flexural isostasy have an additional dimension added beyond those of the problem. (I do admit that van Wees and Cloetingh did the same...)


I look forward to seeing your revised manuscript.

Dear Dr. Colleoni and co-authors,

Thank you for your swift response and the associated changes and counterarguments. I have a few quick suggestions, but that is all.


For your abstract, I'd like to offer the following suggestion in the place of the three new sentences, in case this helps you to reach the point about your model sooner and provides the same motivating information to the reader:

Paleo-bathymetric reconstructions provide boundary conditions to numerical models of ice-sheet evolution and ocean circulation, critical to understanding their evolution through time.

If you would like, it is also quite common to then have a second sentence of the approximate form "Currently, the scientific community lacks a tool to do X (which is preventing scientific advances)." Then the third sentence can be, "In response to this need, we ..."

Or something like this!



The second point: I really do not like to push back against author rebuttals, but in this case I would really like to request a new color map for Fig. 9. The contour lines are think and unlabeled, and are therefore not sufficient for me to comprehend the plots if I turn off the color. And I do see this as an accessibility issue for our colleagues with disabilities. I am sorry that this will take you extra work -- I am sure that you are quite ready to see this paper be published!

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19160-7



Beyond this, I think that your changes are satisfactory. I am suggesting "technical corrections" because of the minor nature of the requests, which will require no further review by me. Best wishes for the remaining steps leading to publication,

Andy