the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 15 Jan 2025
Discerning Variscan from Alpine deformation in the Pyrenean Axial Zone; insights from geochronologic and structural data
Abstract. The Axial Pyrenean Zone constitutes the axis of the Pyrenees, an Alpine orogen. The precambrian and paleozoic rocks outcropping in this zone underwent two orogenies (the Variscan and Alpine orogenies). Within this zone, distinguishing Variscan from Alpine structures represents a very complicated task due to the scarcity both of geochronological data constraining the age of deformation and units younger than Permian which would be only affected by Alpine deformation. In this work we have dated a rhyolitic sill interspersed within the regional Variscan foliation (S1) by zircon geochronology with U-Pb ion probe (SHRIMP). This sill is located in the central part of the Axial Zone, between the Garone Dome and the Aran Valley Syncline, and it is folded by open and upright folds that also deform Variscan structures. The results indicate that the sill have an Early-Middle Permian age of 274±1.5 Ma. This age postdates the Variscan deformation that occurred between 380 and 290 Ma and indicates that the folds deforming the sill must be of Alpine age. Moreover, these folds are associated with a penetrative crenulation lineation recognized in the Garonne Dome that points to a possible Alpine origin for the macrostructural configuration of this dome. This work highlights the necessity of incorporating geochronological data to correctly interpret deformation in complex areas as the Axial Pyrenean Zone affected by two orogenies.
This preprint has been retracted.
-
Retraction notice
This preprint has been retracted. Please read the editorial note.
-
Preprint
(2429 KB)
-
This preprint has been retracted. Please read the editorial note.
- Preprint
(2429 KB) - Metadata XML
- Editorial note
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3663', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Feb 2025
The article by García-Sansegundo et al. addresses an interesting topic that has been the subject of debate for decades among geologists working in the Pyrenees: the possible effects of Alpine deformation on the Variscan basement of the Pyrenean Axial Zone. However, the loose organization of the different parts, together with the lack of coherence and clarity in the arguments, lead me to assert that the work would require substantial revision.
The manuscript is structured in three first sections (1 Introduction, 2 Geological Setting and 3 Variscan deformation and metamorphism), resulting into a rather chaotic presentation of the study area, with repetition of information in different sections. The results and discussion of the work are poor, as questionable, speculative and contradictory arguments abound. There are even a few incorrect and misleading statements, and the conclusions are ambiguous. But the reason I am opting for the work to be rejected is the clear signs of plagiarism. Almost all section 4 Methodology has been literally copied from another work, a PhD thesis which is not even quoted (see annotated pdf for details).
Extensive comments, suggestions and some corrections regarding both, text and figures are included in an annotated pdf copy of the manuscript.
I hope these comments are useful. Best regards.
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3663', Florian Fusseis, 27 Feb 2025
Editorial note
The manuscript „Discerning Variscan from Alpine deformation in the Pyrenean Axial Zone; insights from geochronologic and structural data“, by Clariana and co-workers was found, upon initial screening, to contain insufficient information on the exact details of geochronological data acquisition. The authors had originally covered the basic methodology by inserting a weblink to the facility where the dating was conducted; this was unacceptable as a) that information on that website would be lost to the reader if the website was deleted and b) the weblink contained insufficient information to render the specific analyses reproducible. Therefore, I, as the handling topical editor, requested that the specific section, among other aspects of the manuscript, was improved before the paper could be sent out for review. One of the reviewers then found that the newly inserted methodology section was plagiarized from a PhD thesis that used the same methodology and that is available online. Specifically, lines 200-235 in the manuscript submitted to Solid Earth seem directly copied from the PhD thesis of Irene Pérez Cácerez, specifically, pages 176 and 177. This thesis was not referenced by the authors. The insertion remained undetected prior to distribution to reviewers because manuscripts submitted to SE are only scanned for plagiarism when first submitted; later versions aren’t.
By inserting a plagiarized section of text into the manuscript, the paper is in clear violation of the Publication Ethics policy of Solid Earth, specifically the Originality and Plagiarism sections (https://www.solid-earth.net/policies/publication_ethics.html). Consequently, the paper must be rejected.
Florian Fusseis
Executive Editor Solid Earth
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3663-EC1
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3663', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Feb 2025
The article by García-Sansegundo et al. addresses an interesting topic that has been the subject of debate for decades among geologists working in the Pyrenees: the possible effects of Alpine deformation on the Variscan basement of the Pyrenean Axial Zone. However, the loose organization of the different parts, together with the lack of coherence and clarity in the arguments, lead me to assert that the work would require substantial revision.
The manuscript is structured in three first sections (1 Introduction, 2 Geological Setting and 3 Variscan deformation and metamorphism), resulting into a rather chaotic presentation of the study area, with repetition of information in different sections. The results and discussion of the work are poor, as questionable, speculative and contradictory arguments abound. There are even a few incorrect and misleading statements, and the conclusions are ambiguous. But the reason I am opting for the work to be rejected is the clear signs of plagiarism. Almost all section 4 Methodology has been literally copied from another work, a PhD thesis which is not even quoted (see annotated pdf for details).
Extensive comments, suggestions and some corrections regarding both, text and figures are included in an annotated pdf copy of the manuscript.
I hope these comments are useful. Best regards.
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3663', Florian Fusseis, 27 Feb 2025
Editorial note
The manuscript „Discerning Variscan from Alpine deformation in the Pyrenean Axial Zone; insights from geochronologic and structural data“, by Clariana and co-workers was found, upon initial screening, to contain insufficient information on the exact details of geochronological data acquisition. The authors had originally covered the basic methodology by inserting a weblink to the facility where the dating was conducted; this was unacceptable as a) that information on that website would be lost to the reader if the website was deleted and b) the weblink contained insufficient information to render the specific analyses reproducible. Therefore, I, as the handling topical editor, requested that the specific section, among other aspects of the manuscript, was improved before the paper could be sent out for review. One of the reviewers then found that the newly inserted methodology section was plagiarized from a PhD thesis that used the same methodology and that is available online. Specifically, lines 200-235 in the manuscript submitted to Solid Earth seem directly copied from the PhD thesis of Irene Pérez Cácerez, specifically, pages 176 and 177. This thesis was not referenced by the authors. The insertion remained undetected prior to distribution to reviewers because manuscripts submitted to SE are only scanned for plagiarism when first submitted; later versions aren’t.
By inserting a plagiarized section of text into the manuscript, the paper is in clear violation of the Publication Ethics policy of Solid Earth, specifically the Originality and Plagiarism sections (https://www.solid-earth.net/policies/publication_ethics.html). Consequently, the paper must be rejected.
Florian Fusseis
Executive Editor Solid Earth
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3663-EC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 157 | 27 | 8 | 192 | 9 | 4 |
- HTML: 157
- PDF: 27
- XML: 8
- Total: 192
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 57 | 32 |
| United States of America | 2 | 50 | 28 |
| Germany | 3 | 10 | 5 |
| China | 4 | 9 | 5 |
| France | 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 57
Joaquín García-Sansegundo
Álvaro Rubio-Ordóñez
Ruth Soto
This preprint has been retracted. Please read the editorial note.
- Preprint
(2429 KB) - Metadata XML