Dear Authors,

Thank you for your response to the reviewer comments and the additional comment. You demonstrate that you have gived strong consideration to their input and the need for some revisions to the manuscript. The new versions of the figures you present in your responses clearly demonstrate that consideration. I invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript reflecting the changes that you describe in your author responses. Based on the comments of the two reviewers regarding how to describe the Milos volcanic field I will invite them to look over the changes related to this point. It was indicated by one of the reviewers that there were some errors in the English so it would be good if you could address these if possible, but I will also look over the revised submission and provide editorial input to address this issue if required.

Best Wishes
Peter Abbott

Dear Xiaolong Zhou

Thanks very much for submitting your revised manuscript to Geochronology. The original reviewers have kindly looked over the manuscript again and I am happy to say they both feel that the changes you have made have improved the manuscript. One of the reviewers has further comments on the Discussion section that I feel need to be addressed and I refer you to their report and annotated pdf. In addition, I have looked over the revised manuscript and have some small, mainly textural, changes that I would like you to consider and implement if you agree.

I invite you to make the hopefully minor revisions suggested by the reviewer and myself and feel the paper can be published if those are addressed sufficiently.

Best Wishes
Peter Abbott

Dear Xiaolong Zhou

Many thanks for submitting the revised version of your manuscript and addressing the comments of myself and Prof. McPhie. I note your response regarding Section 4.1, but do agree with Prof. McPhie that aspects of this section would be more appropriate in the Introduction, specifically Lines 466-482. This part of Section 4.1 provides a useful description of the disadvantages of the K-Ar method versus the advantages of the Ar-Ar method, which I feel is a more general review and not a specific discussion of your data. This section provides a justification for your study and the Ar-Ar approach taken so would work well after Section 1.2 where you describe the past studies that exploited K-Ar dating and you can justify the need to revisit the geochronology of Milos using Ar-Ar dating and introduce the advantages of the technique. The second part of Section 4.1 does provide a discussion of your data so is appropriate for the Discussion section so I don't think that requires moving or revising.

So I would request that you further consider moving the first part of Section 4.1 into your introduction, which I feel is a minor change and would help to provide further justification for your study and the production of the new dates.

Best Wishes
Peter

Dear Xiaolong Zhou

Many thanks for submitting this revision very quickly, I think that final changes makes a big different to the manuscript. I am very happy to now accept your manuscript for publication in Geochronology. Thanks for submitting it to the journal initially and for participating actively in the review and revision process. I look forward to seeing the final article soon.

Best Wishes
Peter

Thanks for submitting a revised and improved version of your manuscript. It is a very nice and well-presented study. I think it can be published as is.
However, I would appreciate if you could get rid of the word "believe" in the text. It is a very unfortunate word to use particularly in geochronology as it opens the door for "non-scientists" to question geochronoloy based on radioactive decay and give weight to their "believes" about geological time.

Klaus Mezger