Dear Dr. Deepak Choudhary,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 21 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Shamim Ahmad, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your manuscript, please provide additional information regarding the specimens used in your study. Ensure that you have reported human remain specimen numbers and complete repository information, including museum name and geographic location.

If permits were required, please ensure that you have provided details for all permits that were obtained, including the full name of the issuing authority, and add the following statement:

'All necessary permits were obtained for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

If no permits were required, please include the following statement:

'No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

For more information on PLOS One's requirements for paleontology and archeology research, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“Funding generously provided by: Leakey Foundation Grant S202410509; NSF BCS Awards 1945736, 1945618,1945743; MoES/P.O.(Geosci)/46/2015 and SERB-HRR/2018/000063; PSC-CUNY faculty award program; Hunter College; AAPA professional development grant program; USC; IHO/ASU.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“•          D.C. received support from the Leakey Foundation (https://leakeyfoundation.org), grant S202410509.

•            C.G., C.C., B.P., and R.P. received support from the National Science Foundation (NSF) (https://www.nsf.gov), awards BCS‑1945736, BCS‑1945618, and BCS‑1945743.

•            R.P. received support from the Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India (https://moes.gov.in), grant MoES/P.O.(Geosci)/46/2015, and from the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), Government of India (https://www.serb.gov.in), grant HRR/2018/000063.

•            C.G. received support from the PSC‑CUNY Faculty Award Program, Hunter College (https://www.rfcuny.org).

•            B.P. received support from the American Association of Biological Anthropologists (AABA) Professional Development Grant Program (https://physanth.org), the University of Southern California (USC) (https://www.usc.edu), and the Institute of Human Origins, Arizona State University (IHO/ASU) (https://iho.asu.edu).

The sponsors or funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Dr Deepak Choudhary,

This manuscript has been reviewed by three independent reviewers, and the authors are kindly requested to carefully go through the comments provided and address them appropriately. The manuscript requires revision before it can be considered for acceptance.

This study presents an important and timely contribution by establishing, for the first time, a magnetostratigraphic framework for the middle Miocene primate-bearing fossil sites of Ramnagar, India. The work fills a critical gap in Siwalik chronostratigraphy, which has been extensively developed for the Potwar Plateau in Pakistan but has remained poorly constrained for Indian localities despite their rich vertebrate fossil record, including key hominoids such as Sivapithecus, Kapi, and Ramadapis. The integration of paleomagnetic data with biochronological evidence is a major strength of the manuscript, and the proposed age bracket of 12.88–13.03 Ma for the primate-bearing horizons is particularly significant, as it pushes back the known first appearance datum (FAD) of Sivapithecus by approximately 200 kyr.

With respect to the paleontological interpretation, I agree with the authors that the option 2–based correlation appears to be the most plausible and internally consistent with the currently known murine fossil record. However, the biochronological constraint seems to rely heavily on the identification and interpretation of relatively scarce Antemus-like fossil material. If this taxonomic assignment were to be revised or proven incorrect, the robustness of the option 2 correlation could be weakened. In this context, the manuscript would be strengthened by the inclusion of photographs or detailed illustrations of the relevant fossil material, allowing readers to better evaluate the biological evidence supporting this correlation.

Additionally, the discussion presented in lines 510–520 is somewhat difficult to follow. This section would benefit from refinement and clarification, particularly with respect to explicitly explaining why the option 2–based correlation is preferred over alternative correlations and how it best reconciles the magnetostratigraphic and biochronological data.

Finally, the authors note that pedogenic modification is recognized within the paleosol units. Given that many of the Ramnagar fossils are recovered from paleosol horizons, a more detailed pedogenic description would be highly valuable. Expanded discussion of paleosol characteristics (e.g., horizon development, carbonate accumulation, root traces, or other pedogenic features) would provide important context for fossil preservation and enhance the paleoenvironmental interpretation.

With Regards,

Dr S Ahmad

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Dear Editor,

This is an interesting article that provide a magnetostratigraphic framework for primate-bearing fossil sites in the middle Miocene of India. Siwalik deposits are well described and examined chronologically in the Potwar Plateau, Pakistan, whereas paleomagnetic framework has not be installed in the middle Miocene localities of Ramnagar, India, even though important fossil localities, including ones with fossil primates (Sivapithecus, Kapi and Ramadapis), have been reported. This study established magnetostratigraphy of the fossil-yielding sites in Ramnagar and dated the primate sites to be between 12.88 and 13.03 Ma. Their results push back the known FAD of Sivapithecus back by 200,000 years.

Here are my comments relevant to paleontology.

I agree with the authors that option 2-based correlation is most plausible and consistent with the fossil record of murines. My understanding is that the biochronological estimateof the fossil record is dependent on the interpretation of scarce materials of Antemus-like fossils. If this assignment is incorrect, option 2 is not the most likely correlation. Is it correct? In this case, I would appreciate if photos of the fossils are available in this manuscript so that biological evidence is clear. Also, I found the discussion in lines 510-520 a bit difficult to follow. I would appreciate if the authors refine the discussion to decipher why option 2-based correlation is most plausible.

The authors wrote that pedogenic modification is recognized in the paleosol units. I think pedogenic description would be appreciated as most fossils from Ramnagar are found from paleosol levels.

P6, line 127: Isnt “cross-section” more common than “transverse” for a geological map?

P7, line 140: delete a comma after Figs. 2.

P8, Table 1: In this table, primate taxa are associated with key sandstones. However, most fossils are produced from paleosol. I thought this table is misleading and needs to be changed. The label “New Section” must be mistaken.

Figure 4: I just wanna let you know that in the NRM thermal demagnetization graph, open circles are too small to see.

P18, line 357-358: “reversals” to “intervals”

P25, line 517: Insert “the” before most likely

P22, Line 451: I would say “dated to an age between”.

Reviewer #2: First of all, the section (190 m) is very small for Magnetostratigraphic study. Getting several reversals within 190 m section is questionable, however, the authors tried to give various reasons and divided the interpretation in three options, but I must warn the authors that this is not a good practice to adjust the local MPS correlation with GPTS in this fashion using Bio (fossils) rather I would suggest to use reversal polarity events for the correlation with GPTS. The sampling part is not sufficient enough to get an average mean VGP latitude. I have made several comments in the annotated pdf manuscript.

Reviewer #3: The authors have utilised multiple evidences on lithostratigraphy, magnetostratigraphy and biochronology to provide an age context to the Lower Siwalik deposits at Ramnagar (north India) and its correlation to the Chinji and Nagri formations (Potwar Plateau) in a GPTS framework. An age range between ~13.03 Ma and ~11.59 Ma for the various primate yielding localities of Ramnagar (north India) has been constrained in the study. An integrated research on stratigraphy by the authors holds significance, as it may assist in better understanding the Neogene primate evolution of the subcontinent in a palaeobiogeographic context. All figures are of good quality. In view of the above, the manuscript should be accepted for publication.

I do have a few minor suggestions for the authors, and believe that they can be addressed during the proofing stage.

Minor suggestions:

Maintain consistency (as per Fig 7, and up to 2 decimal places) throughout the text while mentioning the numerical ages and/or age ranges. For instance, the FAD of the likely stem hylobatid Kapi ramnagarensis, sivaladapid Ramadapis sahnii, and the great ape Sivapithecus: 12.88-13.03 Ma and/or 12.8-13.0 Ma (refer to sections ‘Abstract’, ‘Implications for the timing of primate evolution’, ‘Conclusions’).

Vivesh Vir Kapur

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-57067.pdf

<p>Geochronological Insights of Middle Miocene Primates and Vertebrate Fauna of Ramnagar (J&K, India): Integrating Litho- and Magnetostratigraphy

PONE-D-25-57067R1

Dear Dr. Choudhary,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Shamim Ahmad, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Dr Choudhary,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript, “Geochronological Insights of Middle Miocene Primates and Vertebrate Fauna of Ramnagar (J&K, India): Integrating Litho- and Magnetostratigraphy,” has been accepted for publication. Congratulations, and thank you for choosing PLOS ONE. We wish you continued success in your future research endeavors.

Sincerely,

Dr S Ahmad

Reviewers' comments: