This paper represents a novelty in the earthquake precursor literature: it intends to scrutinize the series of anomalies preceding the 2015 Nepal earthquake sequence in order to establish the correct chain of processes of the Lithosphere-Coversphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere coupling (LCAI-coupling) physics.  The chosen case study is interesting because it is one the most recent studied earthquakes, so it represents a good example to apply the approach these authors propose. The paper can be published after some minor revision is undertaken, following the suggestions below, that are indicated in the order they appear in the text.

The title: I would avoid acronyms in the title. In addition, perhaps “Scrutinizing” could replace “Screening and rooting”. So better: “Scrutinizing the multiple anomalies of Nepal earthquake sequence in 2015 with Deviation-Time-Space criterion and homologous Lithosphere-Coversphere-Atmosphere-Ionosphere coupling physics”

Line 14. Please replace “alternation” with “alteration” (as correctly CSFA defined after in the main text)

Line 78. I would insert “(Nepal)” after “Gorkha”, in order to be clear that you are speaking about the same Nepal earthquake, i.e. the mainshock that will be dealt with this paper.

Line 85. I would insert “with a” after “behaved”.

Figure 1. It is not clear from which catalogue the earthquake data depicted in the figure have been downloaded. USGS (as indicated in Figure 6; but see also my associated question to that figure)?

 Figure 3. A referring table with each abbreviation together with its corresponding literature would be welcome. By the way, the abbreviation “Santis 2017” should be replaced by the complete surname of the first author, i.e. “De Santis 2017”.  (see also Figure 7 and Line 741)

Line 250. Please replace “LACI” with “LCAI”

Figure 6. In the caption you mention that the seismic activities is taken from USGS with earthquakes Mw equal to or larger than 2.5. The latter fact is dubious since USGS has, outside USA, a typical magnitude of completeness of 4-4.5. Could you please check is it is true that there are earthquakes with magnitude from 2.5 to 4?

Line 386. Please replace “attribute” with “attributed”.

Figure 7. Please replace “Santis 2017” with “De Santis 2017”.

Line 404. “eruption”? Probably you meant “rupture”.

Line 467. Please replace “LACI” with “LCAI”

Line 529. In the list of references, there are two citations with the journal “Techno” that I think are actually “Tectonophysics”. (see also in Line 630)

Line 611. Please write correctly “Lavé”.

Line 619. Please replace “teh ionosphere” with “the ionosphere”.

Line 707. Please replace “Modication” with “Modification”.

Line 741. Please replace “Santis, and A.D.” with “De Santis A.”

Line 745. Please replace “2009Mw 7.3” with “2009 Mw 7.3”

Lines 746-757. Please remove the “ before and after the title of the paper.

This paper collected all the anomalies around the Nepal earthquake in 2015 occurring in lithosphere, atmosphere and ionosphere, and try to establish their physical relationship according their spatial and temporal characteristics. It provides a new idea for comprehensive analysis for multi parameters from different layers. It is interesting and shows some significances in earthquake research and prediction. The paper can be accepted after minor revisions. Main questions: 1. How do the authors estimate the reliability of the anomalies, especially the studies on the same parameter but with the different anomaly occurring time? 2. About the published papers, their studied time scale are not the same, for some with much longer time than years, for some only a few days before the earthquakes that did not mean without long time anomaly in that parameter. According to the statistical study of De Santis, the ionospheric disturbances were also occurred in a quite longer time during the earthquake preparation phase. How do the authors consider them in a same time scale when their studied time period is not same, is it suitable? 3. Most anomalies were not detected in the same day, even after the selection of Figure 7, which illustrate indirect relationship between them? Or the coupling process among the lithosphere, atmosphere, ionosphere all needs a few days? Minor revisions: Line 165: about the figure 3, why only exhibited -20d anomalies around the earthquakes? As described in the text, most parameters exhibited anomalies before that, especially for those in lithosphere? I’d like to suggest a much longer time scale, at least 2-3 months before for a M7 earthquake. Line 265: for figure 5, please add the unit for the parameters used in the model. Line 310-315: This paragraph discussed the P-pole links, but unfortunately there is no direct evidence or observations to prove it. The authors just list its products in atmosphere, not the real detection on the P-pole effects from geoelectric field, geomagnetic field, underground fluid or something like them in that region. The laboratory results cannot replace the field observations. So it is not so convincing here. Line 360: through the ionosphere? Line 352: About the section 5.1, I cannot agree with the point to firstly retain the negative anomalies in ionosphere. (1) The ionospheric perturbations are always modulated, they cannot be easily defined as increase or decrease; the number of positive anomalies in TEC is almost the same as the negative ones, why the authors remove the positive ones so easily? (2) The disturbances in VLF radio waves are always considered with close relationship of acoustic gravity waves, why the authors connect them to electric field?