Dear Professor Margarida Ramalho,
I have got now two referee reports regarding your manuscript: ‘A sanity check for earthquake recurrence models used in PSHA of slow deforming regions: the case of SW Iberia’.
Reviewer 2 questioned the scientific basis for selecting the earthquakes to be fed as the input into PHSA along with some other important points. Reviewer 1 was more positive regarding the manuscript and among other points asked for rewriting the Methods and Conclusions sections.
If you think you can answers the reviewers comments, I encourage you to submit a revised version of the manuscript which I will send to be reviewed again.
Sincerely,
Oded Katz

=====================
Oded Katz
Handling Editor
NHESS
-
Office: +972-2-5314267
Mobile: +972-54-5575926
E-mail: odedk@gsi.gov.il

Dear Professor Margarida Ramalho,
In the review of the revised version of your manuscript the referee stated that ‘the revision falls far short of what was requested’.
I thus decided to reject your manuscript at this point.
I am sorry,
Sincerely,
Oded Katz

=====================
Oded Katz
Handling Editor
NHESS
-
Office: +972-2-5314267
Mobile: +972-54-5575926
E-mail: odedk@gsi.gov.il

Dear Margarida Ramalho,
I attached here my mail from 5.9.2021 for the records.
First I am happy to notify you that I have changed the ‘rejection’ decision regarding your manuscript (nhess-2020-300) to ‘major revision’. You are welcome to upload a revised version of your manuscript (see also below).

Previously, I decided to reject your manuscript following my impression that you did an incomplete revision-job. I.e. you had the opportunity to resubmit a much improved manuscript, while the revised version submitted failed short of what was requested by the referees. Subject to a discussion with the Executive Editor (Bruce Malamud) and the referees, the rejection decision was changed based on the impressions that eventually the manuscript can become a really important contribution to this field.

Please include the following comments in the revised version:

1. The title of the paper is “A sanity check for earthquake recurrence models….” When we talk about a sanity check for a human being we’re talking about finding out whether or not the person is insane. We don’t normally order a “sanity check” on a human unless we strongly suspect the person is insane. When we make a “sanity check” of PSHA this is because we strongly suspect PSHA is fundamentally flawed, i.e., that it is an incorrect theory that therefore gives incorrect results. Two papers (Stein et al., 2012; Mularrgia et al., 2017) are cited here, but not correctly. Lines 43-45 say “One of the evolutions suffered by PSHA studies and now recognized as essential, is the evaluation of the uncertainties on the results (e.g. Frankel, 2004, Stein et al., 2012, Mulargia et al., 2017), being a consequence of our incomplete knowledge of the earthquake generation and propagation mechanisms. This is a misrepresentation, for the 2017 paper in particular. The first paper (Stein et al., 2012) points out that, for whatever reason, many damaging earthquakes occurred in regions designated as being at relatively low risk by PSHA-based hazard maps. Paper did not say that this discrepancy is due to “our incomplete knowledge of the earthquake generation and propagation mechanisms.” It was just noted that the discrepancy exists.

2. The second misrepresentation is more serious. Mulargia et al. (2017) do not say the problems of PSHA are because of “our incomplete knowledge of the earthquake generation and propagation mechanisms.” Rather, paper says that the fundamental assumption of PSHA (that past seismicity rates can be conflated with future probabilities) is wrong, and that the use of PSHA should therefore be abandoned. The “sanity check” made in the present paper should therefore be framed as one trial to see if the position of Mulargia et al. (2017) is correct or not.

3. The authors (lines 24-43) discuss the widespread use of PSHA by society. This discussion should also mention that the widespread use of PSHA is an example of a kind of “group-think,” inasmuch as PSHA is being used by almost everyone without having been validated by anyone.

4. Conclusions section: What is the conclusion: sane or insane? This should be clearly stated.

5. Discussion section: A brief “discussion” section should be added. In particular I recommend that Klemeš (1989) (as well as, perhaps, Klemeš, 1986 as well) should be cited and discussed. His work discusses hydrology, but the problem in our field is the same. We have the PSHA machinery into which we put numbers, and like magic, other numbers are output. But this is just a mathematical pastime and the numbers that come out are just numbers, nothing more, unless the model used by PSHA has been validated. In fact, not only has it not been validated, but, as pointed out by Mulargia et al. (2017) it appears to be wrong. So what should everyone involved in risk and hazard estimation be doing instead of blind (or conditional) reliance on PSHA? Please discuss this.

References not cited in paper under review
Klemeš, V., 1986. Dilettantism in Hydrology: Transition or Destiny? Water Resources Research, 22, 177S-188S.
Klemeš, V., 1989. The improbable probabilities of extreme floods and droughts. In: Starosolszky, O., Medler, O.M. (Eds.), Hydrology of Disasters. James and James, London, pp. 43–51.

Sincerely,
Oded Katz

=====================
Oded Katz
Handling Editor
NHESS
-
Office: +972-2-5314267
Mobile: +972-54-5575926
E-mail: odedk@gsi.gov.il

Dear Professor Margarida Ramalho,
Please follow the suggestions that were made by the reviewer of the last draft and submit a revised (and final) version of your manuscript.
Sincerely,
Oded Katz

=====================
Oded Katz
Handling Editor
NHESS
-
Office: +972-2-5314267
Mobile: +972-54-5575926
E-mail: odedk@gsi.gov.il

Dear Professor Margarida Ramalho,
I am pleased to inform you that the revised version of your manuscript NHESS-2020-300 can now be accepted for publication in our journal Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS). Please inform your co-authors of the editorial decision.
You will soon be contacted by the journal publication office for the preparation of the final version of your manuscript. Please respond promptly to the requests of the publication office, as this will condition the time of your publication, and read carefully any copy-editing recommendations that they make. Let me remind you that final publication of your paper on the journal web site is subject to the payment of the appropriate service charges. Also, do not forget that as an open-access journal you can freely distribute your paper once it is published.
I take this opportunity to thank you and your co-authors for having selected Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS) for the publication of your scientific work.

Sincerely,
Oded Katz.

=====================
Oded Katz
Handling Editor
NHESS
-
Office: +972-2-5314267
Mobile: +972-54-5575926
E-mail: odedk@gsi.gov.il