-->PONE-D-25-52722-->-->Study on Source-Sink System Coupling and Spatiotemporal Evolution of Multiphase Rift Basins: A Case Study of Jurassic-Cretaceous in Lishu Fault Depression, Southeastern Songliao Basin-->-->PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

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 Dec 08 2025 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.. 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A rebuttal 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 you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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 . 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,

Santanu Banerjee

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. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work.

Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China project "Research on the Mechanism of the Role of Saline Substances in Saline Lake Basins on the Evolution of Diage-netic Fluids and Differential Diagenetic Responses in Deep Tight Reservoirs" (Project No.: 42472178)”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please note that 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.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows:

“All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.”

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

7. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

8. We note that Figures 1, 5, 6, 7, and 16 in your submission contain map  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 Figures 1, 5, 6, 7, and 16 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/

9. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Comments to the Author

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: yes

Reviewer #2: No

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1:

The article “Study on Source-Sink System Coupling and Spatiotemporal Evolution of Multiphase Rift Basins: A Case Study of Jurassic-Cretaceous in Lishu Fault Depression, Southeastern Songliao Basin”is guided by sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, and the "source-sink" system framework. Leveraging seismic, drilling, and logging data, it conducts in-depth research on the sequence stratigraphic framework and the three key elements of the source-sink system (provenance system, transport system, and sedimentary system distribution). The study also performs semi-quantitative characterization of source-sink system features, innovatively reconstructs and classifies paleo-source-sink systems, and provides a scientific basis for the spatial distribution of sedimentary sand bodies in rift basins. Focusing on the spatiotemporal evolution of source-sink systems in multiphase rift basins, the research aligns with current frontiers in sedimentology. However, there are several recommendations：

1. The Introduction provides a rich contextual background; however, the paper may benefit from a clearer and more direct articulation of its scientific questions or hypotheses. Enhancing this aspect could help readers better appreciate the novelty and scope of the investigation.

2. The conclusions might benefit from a more concise structure with emphasis on the core findings, scientific contributions and broader implications. Please make further modification.

3. Heavy mineral assemblages and sandstone components are used to indicate provenance direction, where heavy minerals primarily reflect provenance sources, and clastic components of sandstone mainly indicate transport distance. During the description of provenance system evolution in each rifting phase, the interpretation of provenance evolution in different regions reflected by sandstone clastic components is insufficient. Further clarify the significance of sandstone components for provenance area analysis.

4. The study meticulously characterizes the "source system," "transport system," and "sedimentary system," but the correlation among the three subsystems is weak, and the coupling of provenance system-transport pathway-sedimentary system is not emphasized. In the discussion section, further clarify the coupling relationship and reflect it in the classified source-sink system types.

5. It is recommended to remove the wells not mentioned in the text from Figure 1, and the reference for the stratigraphic column in Figure 2 must be cited from previous studies.

6. The Fig.17 might be refined for clarity and representation of the sedimentary models.

7. Please keep the sedimentary terminology in consistent throughout the manuscript, which would improve clarity of the paper.

General conclusion: I recommend minor revision before the manuscript can be accepted.

Reviewer #2:

Summary of Review for Manuscript PONE-D-25-52722

The manuscript takes the rift sub-basin of the Songliao Basin in China as an example, and through the analysis of 3-D seismic and drilling data, conducts a comprehensive study on the sequence, geomorphology, sedimentary, and source-sink system during different tectonic periods, and explores the process of differential development of the source-to-sink system during the lacustrine basin rifting period. However, these research works have certain gaps with the publication requirements of PLOS ONE in terms of scientific issues, research significance, and innovativeness.

Main comments:

1. Whether it is the abstract, introduction, or discussion section, the manuscript is confined to a single rift basin in the southeastern part of the Songliao Basin. It discusses the deficiencies in the research on S2S, and its global significance needs to be enhanced. Furthermore, there are numerous research results on S2S in continental basins, covering various research fields. The manuscript lacks sufficient scientific issues and innovative points.

2. In the introduction, the manuscript devotes considerable space to elaborating on the significance of S2S research, as well as the differences in the configuration of S2S between marine basins and continental basins. However, the discussion on the existing issues in the current global research S2S in continental rift basins, as well as the scientific significance of conducting source-to-sink system research using the Songliao Basin as an example, is clearly insufficient.

3. The discussion section needs improvement in the following aspects: (1) It should conduct in-depth comparative analysis based on research at the forefront of the discipline and in conjunction with previous studies. (2) There is an excessive focus on process description, with a lack of exploration into mechanisms. For instance, the manuscript conducts quantitative analysis, but what are the dynamic implications of these analysis results for the differential development of S2S in rift basins across different periods? (3) There is a lack of necessary discussion on the broader implications of the research findings, particularly in terms of global significance.

4. The repetitive expressions in 5.2 and 5.3 under discussion can be merged. In addition, it may be more appropriate to place the quantitative analysis of the S2S in the results section.

5. When calculating the fault activity rate, it is necessary to clarify the basis and source for obtaining the deposition age of the strata.

6. Regarding the analysis of tectonic paleogeomorphology, the labeling of major faults is not clear. Many gullies are depicted (mostly with semi-transparent labeling) in Figure 6, but their morphology is not clear from the plan view, and many areas with clearly developed gullies (such as the northeastern part of the figure) are not depicted.

7. Generally, we conduct S2S division by comprehensively considering the configuration relationship between the catchment (water system), transport system, and depositional system. However, the manuscript lacks basis and principles in the classification of S2S types. From the textual description of the manuscript, the type of transport system may serve as an important basis for classification, which raises some debatable issues: some of the source-to-sink system types (such as Convergent) classified in the manuscript may include other types; similarly, if the geomorphic characteristics of the provenance are not considered, such as the "Along-strike Slope type" classified in the gentle slope zone, it is impossible to explain the differences in S2S under multiple provenance-valley-deposition configurations, thereby affecting the prediction of sediment dispersion and favorable reservoir sand bodies.

8. In the analysis of source-to-sink systems, the transport systems related to faults generally include transition zones and fault troughs. Among them, fault troughs are channels or depressions controlled by faults, including single-fault troughs, co-trending double-fault troughs, and reverse double-fault troughs. I don't quite understand the true intention of the manuscript to use fault combinations as transport systems. Moreover, in the analysis of fault combinations, there is a lack of interpretation of fracture combinations in different depositional periods, as shown in Figures 10b and c. Using schematic diagrams to express seems inappropriate.

9. The expression of structural (fault) transfer zones is relatively vague, and the supporting maps cannot illustrate the characteristics of the transfer zones. Based on the interpretation of faults and the reconstruction of paleogeomorphology in the study area, the manuscript needs to first clarify which areas in the study area have transfer zones, then confirm the types of transfer zones, and finally, for the main types of transfer zones, demonstrate the relationship between faults from both plan and profile perspectives.

10. There are numerous issues with the language expression, grammar, and professional terminology in the manuscript, necessitating systematic polishing and revision. For instance, "source-sink" should be uniformly changed to "source-to-sink"; the term "Convergent" is relatively ambiguous, especially when used in the classification of source-to-sink systems; expressions like "down-truncated and up-lapped" are extremely vague; what does "near-same-direction" mean? There are also issues with the standardized expression of seismic reflection characteristics such as amplitude.

11. The descriptions of the captions for most figures are overly simplistic, making it impossible to directly comprehend the intended meaning conveyed by the illustrations merely through the maps and captions. For instance, in Figures 12 to 14, despite presenting drilling, core, and seismic profiles for various sedimentary facies, the geological phenomena and interpretations presented in each figure are not elucidated. Furthermore, for the seismic or geological profiles involved, the origin of the profile location needs to be clearly indicated in the caption

Recommendation:

The manuscript, in its current form, is difficult to consider for publication. The authors should address the points raised by the reviewers and substantially improve figures, English, analysis, references, and key sections (abstract, conclusion), and resubmit a revised version for further review.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

[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?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: The article “Study on Source-Sink System Coupling and Spatiotemporal Evolution of Multiphase Rift Basins: A Case Study of Jurassic-Cretaceous in Lishu Fault Depression, Southeastern Songliao Basin”is guided by sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, and the "source-sink" system framework. Leveraging seismic, drilling, and logging data, it conducts in-depth research on the sequence stratigraphic framework and the three key elements of the source-sink system (provenance system, transport system, and sedimentary system distribution). The study also performs semi-quantitative characterization of source-sink system features, innovatively reconstructs and classifies paleo-source-sink systems, and provides a scientific basis for the spatial distribution of sedimentary sand bodies in rift basins. Focusing on the spatiotemporal evolution of source-sink systems in multiphase rift basins, the research aligns with current frontiers in sedimentology. However, there are several recommendations：

1. The Introduction provides a rich contextual background; however, the paper may benefit from a clearer and more direct articulation of its scientific questions or hypotheses. Enhancing this aspect could help readers better appreciate the novelty and scope of the investigation.

2. The conclusions might benefit from a more concise structure with emphasis on the core findings, scientific contributions and broader implications. Please make further modification.

3. Heavy mineral assemblages and sandstone components are used to indicate provenance direction, where heavy minerals primarily reflect provenance sources, and clastic components of sandstone mainly indicate transport distance. During the description of provenance system evolution in each rifting phase, the interpretation of provenance evolution in different regions reflected by sandstone clastic components is insufficient. Further clarify the significance of sandstone components for provenance area analysis.

4. The study meticulously characterizes the "source system," "transport system," and "sedimentary system," but the correlation among the three subsystems is weak, and the coupling of provenance system-transport pathway-sedimentary system is not emphasized. In the discussion section, further clarify the coupling relationship and reflect it in the classified source-sink system types.

5. It is recommended to remove the wells not mentioned in the text from Figure 1, and the reference for the stratigraphic column in Figure 2 must be cited from previous studies.

6. The Fig.17 might be refined for clarity and representation of the sedimentary models.

7. Please keep the sedimentary terminology in consistent throughout the manuscript, which would improve clarity of the paper.

General conclusion: I recommend minor revision before the manuscript can be accepted.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript takes the rift sub-basin of the Songliao Basin in China as an example, and through the analysis of 3-D seismic and drilling data, conducts a comprehensive study on the sequence, geomorphology, sedimentary, and source-sink system during different tectonic periods, and explores the process of differential development of the source-to-sink system during the lacustrine basin rifting period. However, these research works have certain gaps with the publication requirements of PLOS ONE in terms of scientific issues, research significance, and innovativeness.

Main comments:

1. Whether it is the abstract, introduction, or discussion section, the manuscript is confined to a single rift basin in the southeastern part of the Songliao Basin. It discusses the deficiencies in the research on S2S, and its global significance needs to be enhanced. Furthermore, there are numerous research results on S2S in continental basins, covering various research fields. The manuscript lacks sufficient scientific issues and innovative points.

2. In the introduction, the manuscript devotes considerable space to elaborating on the significance of S2S research, as well as the differences in the configuration of S2S between marine basins and continental basins. However, the discussion on the existing issues in the current global research S2S in continental rift basins, as well as the scientific significance of conducting source-to-sink system research using the Songliao Basin as an example, is clearly insufficient.

3. The discussion section needs improvement in the following aspects: (1) It should conduct in-depth comparative analysis based on research at the forefront of the discipline and in conjunction with previous studies. (2) There is an excessive focus on process description, with a lack of exploration into mechanisms. For instance, the manuscript conducts quantitative analysis, but what are the dynamic implications of these analysis results for the differential development of S2S in rift basins across different periods? (3) There is a lack of necessary discussion on the broader implications of the research findings, particularly in terms of global significance.

4. The repetitive expressions in 5.2 and 5.3 under discussion can be merged. In addition, it may be more appropriate to place the quantitative analysis of the S2S in the results section.

5. When calculating the fault activity rate, it is necessary to clarify the basis and source for obtaining the deposition age of the strata.

6. Regarding the analysis of tectonic paleogeomorphology, the labeling of major faults is not clear. Many gullies are depicted (mostly with semi-transparent labeling) in Figure 6, but their morphology is not clear from the plan view, and many areas with clearly developed gullies (such as the northeastern part of the figure) are not depicted.

7. Generally, we conduct S2S division by comprehensively considering the configuration relationship between the catchment (water system), transport system, and depositional system. However, the manuscript lacks basis and principles in the classification of S2S types. From the textual description of the manuscript, the type of transport system may serve as an important basis for classification, which raises some debatable issues: some of the source-to-sink system types (such as Convergent) classified in the manuscript may include other types; similarly, if the geomorphic characteristics of the provenance are not considered, such as the "Along-strike Slope type" classified in the gentle slope zone, it is impossible to explain the differences in S2S under multiple provenance-valley-deposition configurations, thereby affecting the prediction of sediment dispersion and favorable reservoir sand bodies.

8. In the analysis of source-to-sink systems, the transport systems related to faults generally include transition zones and fault troughs. Among them, fault troughs are channels or depressions controlled by faults, including single-fault troughs, co-trending double-fault troughs, and reverse double-fault troughs. I don't quite understand the true intention of the manuscript to use fault combinations as transport systems. Moreover, in the analysis of fault combinations, there is a lack of interpretation of fracture combinations in different depositional periods, as shown in Figures 10b and c. Using schematic diagrams to express seems inappropriate.

9. The expression of structural (fault) transfer zones is relatively vague, and the supporting maps cannot illustrate the characteristics of the transfer zones. Based on the interpretation of faults and the reconstruction of paleogeomorphology in the study area, the manuscript needs to first clarify which areas in the study area have transfer zones, then confirm the types of transfer zones, and finally, for the main types of transfer zones, demonstrate the relationship between faults from both plan and profile perspectives.

10. There are numerous issues with the language expression, grammar, and professional terminology in the manuscript, necessitating systematic polishing and revision. For instance, "source-sink" should be uniformly changed to "source-to-sink"; the term "Convergent" is relatively ambiguous, especially when used in the classification of source-to-sink systems; expressions like "down-truncated and up-lapped" are extremely vague; what does "near-same-direction" mean? There are also issues with the standardized expression of seismic reflection characteristics such as amplitude.

11. The descriptions of the captions for most figures are overly simplistic, making it impossible to directly comprehend the intended meaning conveyed by the illustrations merely through the maps and captions. For instance, in Figures 12 to 14, despite presenting drilling, core, and seismic profiles for various sedimentary facies, the geological phenomena and interpretations presented in each figure are not elucidated. Furthermore, for the seismic or geological profiles involved, the origin of the profile location needs to be clearly indicated in the caption.

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes:Song ZezhangSong Zezhang

Reviewer #2: 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.

-->PONE-D-25-52722R1-->-->Study on Source- to-Sink System Coupling and Spatiotemporal Evolution of Multiphase Rift Basins: A Case Study of Jurassic-Cretaceous in Lishu Fault Depression, Southeastern Songliao Basin-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Wang,

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 09 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.. 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• 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 you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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 . 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,

Santanu Banerjee

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

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.

Additional Editor Comments :

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #1: NA

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #1: No

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1:

Overall Assessment

This manuscript presents a comprehensive study on the source-to-sink systems within the Lishu Fault Depression, utilizing seismic, well-log, and sedimentological data. The research is well-structured, methodologically sound, and provides valuable insights into the coupling mechanisms and spatiotemporal evolution of sedimentary systems in a multiphase rift basin. The findings have practical implications for hydrocarbon exploration in similar geological settings. However, several areas require clarification, refinement, and deeper discussion before the manuscript is suitable for publication.

（1） The current title is overly long, and beginning with "Study on" is redundant. It is recommended to revise it to a more concise and idiomatic expression. Some terms are also inaccurate.

（2） The abstract is information-dense yet overly condensed. Consider streamlining the content to more clearly highlight the key objectives, methods, findings, and implications. The transition between the results (①–⑥) is somewhat abrupt. A more coherent narrative would improve readability.

（3） The literature review in the introduction is comprehensive but appears lengthy and unfocused. It could be more sharply focused on recent advances in source-to-sink modeling within rift basins.

（4） The methodological description is detailed but could benefit from a clearer step-by-step explanation, particularly regarding the integration of different data types (seismic, logging, core).

（5） The discussion section touches on topics like global rift basin comparisons and quantitative relationships, which feels somewhat fragmented and lacks a tight connection to the core issue raised in the introduction: "the coupling mechanisms and evolutionary models of the source-to-sink system in the Lishu Fault Depression." It is recommended to streamline or integrate sections 5.3 and 5.4, emphasizing discussions directly relevant to this case study.

（6） The questions raised in the introduction, such as "how episodic rifting influences sediment stacking patterns" and "how to establish a source-to-sink coupling model," are addressed in the results and discussion, but the presentation could be more explicit. It is suggested to provide an itemized summary at the beginning of the discussion or in the conclusion section to directly respond to the scientific questions posed in the introduction.

（7） The conclusion section largely repeats the results and lacks a concise synthesis of the "coupling mechanisms" and "evolutionary models."

（8） Some figures lack complete information or have unclear labeling.

（9） The manuscript contains noticeable grammatical errors, unnatural expressions, and inaccurate or inconsistent terminology. A thorough language polish by a native English speaker or a professional editing service is highly recommended.

Summary of review: Although there are enough data, the paper needs to be organized properly. The authors should resubmit the paper if all comments of the reviewer are properly addressed and the paper is revised approriately

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #3: No

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #3: Overall Assessment

This manuscript presents a comprehensive study on the source-to-sink systems within the Lishu Fault Depression, utilizing seismic, well-log, and sedimentological data. The research is well-structured, methodologically sound, and provides valuable insights into the coupling mechanisms and spatiotemporal evolution of sedimentary systems in a multiphase rift basin. The findings have practical implications for hydrocarbon exploration in similar geological settings. However, several areas require clarification, refinement, and deeper discussion before the manuscript is suitable for publication.

（1） The current title is overly long, and beginning with "Study on" is redundant. It is recommended to revise it to a more concise and idiomatic expression. Some terms are also inaccurate.

（2） The abstract is information-dense yet overly condensed. Consider streamlining the content to more clearly highlight the key objectives, methods, findings, and implications. The transition between the results (①–⑥) is somewhat abrupt. A more coherent narrative would improve readability.

（3） The literature review in the introduction is comprehensive but appears lengthy and unfocused. It could be more sharply focused on recent advances in source-to-sink modeling within rift basins.

（4） The methodological description is detailed but could benefit from a clearer step-by-step explanation, particularly regarding the integration of different data types (seismic, logging, core).

（5） The discussion section touches on topics like global rift basin comparisons and quantitative relationships, which feels somewhat fragmented and lacks a tight connection to the core issue raised in the introduction: "the coupling mechanisms and evolutionary models of the source-to-sink system in the Lishu Fault Depression." It is recommended to streamline or integrate sections 5.3 and 5.4, emphasizing discussions directly relevant to this case study.

（6） The questions raised in the introduction, such as "how episodic rifting influences sediment stacking patterns" and "how to establish a source-to-sink coupling model," are addressed in the results and discussion, but the presentation could be more explicit. It is suggested to provide an itemized summary at the beginning of the discussion or in the conclusion section to directly respond to the scientific questions posed in the introduction.

（7） The conclusion section largely repeats the results and lacks a concise synthesis of the "coupling mechanisms" and "evolutionary models."

（8） Some figures lack complete information or have unclear labeling.

（9） The manuscript contains noticeable grammatical errors, unnatural expressions, and inaccurate or inconsistent terminology. A thorough language polish by a native English speaker or a professional editing service is highly recommended.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

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.

-->PONE-D-25-52722R2-->-->Source-to-Sink Coupling and Spatiotemporal Evolution during Multiphase Rifting: The Jurassic-Cretaceous Lishu Fault Depression, Southeastern Songliao Basin-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Wang,

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 May 22 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.. 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• 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 you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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 . 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..

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Santanu Banerjee

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

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:

The paper needs moderate revision as suggested by the reviewers. You need to carefully address the comments and revise the paper accordingly.

Reviewer 1 comments:

（1）The Abstract and Conclusion sections should be further refined and elevated to better summarize the distinct characteristics of each part of the study.

（2）It is suggested to clarify how segmented fault activity drives the migration of depocenters, as well as the differentiation patterns of sedimentary facies between steep and gentle slope zones.

（3）The source system analysis could be further streamlined. Focus on elucidating the evolutionary partitioning of source and ensure that the source evolution across different rifting stages is clearly articulated.

（4）The Discussion should more explicitly define the coupling mechanisms between these three components.

（5）Please remove unused well locations from the figures (e.g., Figure 1, Figure 16, etc.).

（6）A scale bar should be added to Figure 15.

（7）In Figure 17 (the conceptual model), briefly indicate the specific types of S2S systems developed within various structural domains of the study area.

（8）It is suggested that the discussion in this paper delve deeper into these relationships to strengthen the quantitative aspect of the S2S research.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #4: （1）The Abstract and Conclusion sections should be further refined and elevated to better summarize the distinct characteristics of each part of the study.

（2）It is suggested to clarify how segmented fault activity drives the migration of depocenters, as well as the differentiation patterns of sedimentary facies between steep and gentle slope zones.

（3）The source system analysis could be further streamlined. Focus on elucidating the evolutionary partitioning of source and ensure that the source evolution across different rifting stages is clearly articulated.

（4）The Discussion should more explicitly define the coupling mechanisms between these three components.

（5）Please remove unused well locations from the figures (e.g., Figure 1, Figure 16, etc.).

（6）A scale bar should be added to Figure 15.

（7）In Figure 17 (the conceptual model), briefly indicate the specific types of S2S systems developed within various structural domains of the study area.

（8）It is suggested that the discussion in this paper delve deeper into these relationships to strengthen the quantitative aspect of the S2S research.

Reviewer #5: The authors have carefully addressed all the previous reviewers' comments point by point and provided a detailed response. In my opinion, the current version of the manuscript has reached the quality standards required for publication in this journal. I recommend acceptance.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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.

-->

Source-to-Sink Coupling and Spatiotemporal Evolution during Multiphase Rifting: The Jurassic-Cretaceous Lishu Fault Depression, Southeastern Songliao Basin

PONE-D-25-52722R3

Dear Dr. Wang,

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  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,

Santanu Banerjee

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The paper has been revised appropriately.

Reviewers' comments: