Dear Dr Smith and co-authors,
Thank you for submitting responses to the comments and suggestions of the two critical reviewers. Both reviewers were positive about manuscript, and your responses indicate a willingness to engage with their suggestions. Accordingly, I’m recommending that your manuscript be published pending minor revision.

I request that your revised manuscript includes the raw GDGT abundance data as part of the supplementary information. Regarding point 2A from Dr. Littler, and to a lesser extent your response to Dr. Jaramillo’s comment about fungal spores, it’s clear that the manuscript could benefit from enhanced consideration and presentation of previously published palynology data from the Ypresian section of the record. I think it’s reasonable to include this context for your PETM record, especially since the underlying data are already published and no new analyses or proxy interpretations are required.

Please submit a revised manuscript, along with a document that clearly specifies how your revisions address the reviewer comments and my requests above.

Sincerely,
Alberto Reyes (handling editor)

Dear Dr. Smith and co-authors,
Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript, and for engaging constructively with the peer review process at Climate of the Past. The reviewers of the original manuscript were positive, and your comments have addressed their points. Thank you, also, for submitting a more complete set of biomarker data in your revised supplementary materials. I’m happy to recommend that the manuscript be published in Climate of the Past.

Sincerely,
Alberto Reyes (handling editor)