Dear authors,

I first would like to apologize for the delay in the review process.
The two reviewers acknowledge the interest of the study, but they both raise questions preventing the acceptance of your manuscript without major revisions. Among the key questions raised, I think that the hypothesis of linearity dependence of organic carbon burial on astronomical forcing is far from being obvious, and impact strongly your results. This should be extensively discussed in the revised version, with adequate references. The other reviewer raised the question of existence of the PCO2 high resolution data for the Plio-Pleistocene period that should be included in your study.
These two points, together with all the other questions, should be answered or discussed in the revised manuscript, that I encourage you to submit. Once the revised version received, it will go for a second round of reviews.

Best regards.

Dear authors,

I would like to thank you for the work done in the revision process. Both reviewers are now supporting the publication of your contribution. Consequently I'm pleased to accept your article for publication in Clim. Past. The remaining typos can be easily corrected and does not require any additional formal review.

Best regards.