the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 22 Oct 2025
How do we make a scan of Earth’s oceanic crust?
Abstract. Like computed tomography (CT) scans used in medicine to look inside human bodies, marine seismologists conduct controlled-source experiments to understand the characteristics of the oceanic lithosphere (rigid outer Earth's layer) that covers >70 % of the surface of our planet. While at sea aboard a research vessel, using the air compressed in an array of stainless-steel cylinders, we produce small earthquakes in the form of air bubbles that propagate through the water, Earth's crust, and mantle and return to be recorded by the instruments we place in the water column or on the seafloor. Although the technique was developed in the 1950s and has been extensively used by academia and industry for decades, it has remained obscured, primarily because it is conducted offshore, out of sight. To expose the less-known technique and show it as a possible career path, we designed a playful model that encourages interaction. Together with the model, we present fundamental Earth processes and the methods we use to explore them, followed by video materials we recorded at sea while collecting the data. Furthermore, to quantitatively evaluate our effort, we constructed age-adapted control quizzes completed by the participants before and after the workshop. These quizzes were designed to assess the student's understanding of the concepts, providing a clear measure of the workshop's effectiveness. We have already conducted the workshop package at several outreach events. Without any exception, the results of the quizzes show that students of ages (9–18 years improved their overall knowledge covered by the experiment. This result is a signal that supports the effectiveness of 'learning by doing' science in a playful, interactive way.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(3961 KB)
-
Supplement
(59 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3961 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(59 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4799', Sima Mousavi, 04 Nov 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Milena Marjanovic, 05 Nov 2025
Dear Dr. Mousavi,
We would like to thank you for your positive comments regarding our work and constructive suggestions for improving our manuscript. Each of the concerns you raised, we address below and make the adequate changes in the manuscript (which are also inserted here):
- Please explain what "fast," "ultrafast," and "slow" represent in Figure 1 and clarify them in the text.
To address this comment, we include a description of the fast-ultaslow spreading rates in the figure caption as follows:
The subduction zones (locations where oceanic plate is sliding under the continental) and mid-ocean ridges (locations where two plates are separating) is outlined and defined in Legend; The shades of gray color represent the variation of full spreading rate along mid-ocean ridges (in millimeters per year); based on the spreading rate we can distinguish the following categories: fast spreading with the spreading rate >80 mm/yr, intermediate ones with spreading rate between 40 and 80 mm/yr, slow-spreading centers with the rate varying from 20-40 mm/yr and ultraslow where the plates are separating at the rate <20 mm/yr.
Line 28 - we have already conducted -> we conducted
We modified the text accordingly.
Line 65 - Could you briefly explain whether there is a difference in data quality between dynamite and air-bubble sources? It would also be helpful to mention whether air bubbles have any environmental impact on marine life, similar to or different from dynamite.
Most comparison studies (conducted in the 1980s and 1990s) suggest that for short source-receiver offsets (i.e., multi-channel seismic), the signal produced by air guns is preferable with respect to the signal from dynamite sources. The benefits of lower frequencies and higher pressure that characterise the signal from the dynamic source become valuable for the wide-angle reflection/refraction at offsets greater than 150 km.
As elaborating on the differences is out of the scope of this study, in the text we simplify to:
"Theoretical calculations showed that although the mean pressure produced by air bubbles is ~8% of that of the signal produced by dynamite, for most of the surveys the former signal is more coherent (Staples et al., 1999). In addition, it is less dangerous for the source operation team aboard the vessel and less harmful for the ocean fauna."
To highlight that air guns still carry specific risks for marine life, in Section 3.2, we also add:
"As mentioned in the Introduction section, the harmful effects of seismic activity were significantly reduced by introducing the system of air guns instead of dynamite; however, the hazard to marine life is still present. To mitigate this, protocols for obtaining permits for seismic activities in specific areas are implemented, and the presence of a mammal observer team has become indispensable for every controlled-source seismic survey. "
Line 87 - qualitatitevly -> qualitatively and Line 90 – concived > conceived
Corrected.
Line 313 - Interesting psychological observation :)
Thank you!
Line 341 - What would you do to improve students' understanding of wave propagation in future sessions?
This is a very important remark, and to address it, we add the following sentence (and we will definitely include the simulation when conducting the experiment next time) :
"To address this gap in understanding, we consider including simplified simulations of the wave propagation during the introduction session."
Line 423 - audience > audience
Corrected.
Line 434 - What changes would you make to the quizzes?
For the meaningful improvement, we will need to work more closely with the schools, foremost to adapt the quizzes to the age of the participants (for instance, we propose one set of questions for the age range from 9 to 12, which may not be ideal); also, we noticed that multiple-choice questions pose problems for the evaluation.
Following the above, in the text we insert the following sentence:
"In parallel, we will also work on improving the quizzes by collaborating more closely with school teachers to adapt them to the school curriculum. In addition, we will eliminate multiple-choice questions as they pose problems at the evaluation stage (currently, the answer is considered correct if at least two correct answers are selected). "
Once again, thank you for your encouraging evaluation. We hope we have addressed all your concerns.
Kind regards,
Milena Marjanovic on behalf of the authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4799-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Milena Marjanovic, 05 Nov 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4799', Maya Pincus, 27 Nov 2025
It was a joy to read about your creative method for making “obscure” research methods visible, and for engaging young learners in authentic science, which, as you convey, is sometimes challenging in academia. The description of your experiment is very clear, which makes it easy for readers to understand your design, and also makes it possible for other researchers to repeat the experiment. Below are my suggestions for each section, followed by some general comments. The attached document contains line-by-line suggestions for technical corrections. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like any elaboration.
Introduction: While the first paragraph creates a compelling narrative about the history of seismic measurements, I think it could be strengthened by references to literature describing those early discoveries. The same thing goes for the early methods described in the second paragraph. I also wonder if there is any research to support your claim that offshore seismic surveys are “obscure and unknown.”
Figure 2: I love the ocean-centered projection, as it reinforces your point that oceans hide so much of Earth’s crust. However, I think the focus on plate boundaries, and especially mid-ocean ridge spreading rates, distracts from the point you are making about earthquake frequency. I recommend that you either switch this figure or also include Figure 2a from the Chen et al. (2023) paper, which shows earthquakes on the same map projection.
Approaches and methods: In the first paragraph, I think the examples of outreach should be described in more detail so that an unfamiliar reader would understand the comparison to your experiment (i.e. what is a “gumby” suit?). (Note: I was not able to open the links provided. If they illustrate what I am saying here, feel free to disregard this comment). I love the inclusion of the LEGO whale to make this even more realistic, and would love to see an expanded description of all the career paths highlighted in your experiment. This makes me wonder: What are you doing to directly teach students about these career possibilities?
Results and discussion: I appreciate that this section both reports the data and attempts to interpret it. However, I was very, very confused by Figure 7, even after reading the figure caption and description in the results section. I realized that my confusion came from the fact that the figure appears to compare the results from each administration of the quiz, making it seem like the results of FDS1, for example, are significantly lower than the results of High School. I eventually figured out that Figure 7a was showing the total number of questions answered by the total number of participants (and is therefore skewed based on how many individuals participated in each event), but this part of the figure did not help me understand how well participants did overall. I was also confused by the bold numbers at the top of the bars in Figure 7a, because the caption does not explain what the percentage represents. In the discussion, I wish there was more in-depth and detailed analysis of why some questions scored so low, both before and after the experiment (ex: FDS1, Question 2).
A general comment: The placement of figures does not match well with the text. For example, I was confused by Figure 2 (page 3) until I got to the description on page 4.
Overall, very interesting to read. Congratulations on your successful outreach activity!
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Milena Marjanovic, 28 Nov 2025
Dear Dr Pincus,
We are pleased that you find our experiment creative, and we sincerely appreciate your effort in providing detailed feedback. Your final remark, qualifying our effort as successful is very motivating. Thank you!
Below, to the best of our ability, we provide the answers to the concerns you raised, aiming to clarify and address each point thoroughly.
Introduction: While the first paragraph creates a compelling narrative about the history of seismic measurements, I think it could be strengthened by references to literature describing those early discoveries. The same thing goes for the early methods described in the second paragraph. I also wonder if there is any research to support your claim that offshore seismic surveys are “obscure and unknown.”
To address the first part of the comment, we provided references for the early discoveries and the method description.
Regarding the second part, while no direct study supports our claim that offshore seismic surveys are obscured and unknown, this statement reflects our experience and the impressions gained through interactions with the public and colleagues in other Earth science domains, which we believe are relevant.
Figure 2: I love the ocean-centered projection, as it reinforces your point that oceans hide so much of Earth’s crust. However, I think the focus on plate boundaries, and especially mid-ocean ridge spreading rates, distracts from the point you are making about earthquake frequency. I recommend that you either switch this figure or also include Figure 2a from the Chen et al. (2023) paper, which shows earthquakes on the same map projection.
Thank you for your comment. To address your concern, we decided to add a panel showing the distribution of earthquakes in addition to the plate boundaries, rather than simply replacing the existing map.
Approaches and methods: In the first paragraph, I think the examples of outreach should be described in more detail so that an unfamiliar reader would understand the comparison to your experiment (i.e. what is a “gumby” suit?). (Note: I was not able to open the links provided. If they illustrate what I am saying here, feel free to disregard this comment). I love the inclusion of the LEGO whale to make this even more realistic, and would love to see an expanded description of all the career paths highlighted in your experiment. This makes me wonder: What are you doing to directly teach students about these career possibilities?
We apologize for the broken links and provide both of them below:
Open House Lamont: https://openhouse.ldeo.columbia.edu/content/exhibits
Fete de la Science at IPGP : https://www.ipgp.fr/actus-et-agenda/actualites/fete-de-la-science-2024-a-lipgp/
Thank you for pointing this out. We will ensure that the links we insert into the final version of the manuscript are clickable.
To address the concern raised by your comment, we provide an additional description of the experiments cited and add a sentence that states the main conceptual difference with respect to our experiment. The modified text is inserted below:
“There are many examples of playful ways that our colleagues worldwide have designed to showcase research in Geology, primarily targeting younger audiences, to present the field as a potential career path. For instance, every Fall, the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory from Columbia Climate School in the USA opens its doors to engage with the public through a wide range of ateliers, including exposition of deep-sea cores, trying on immersing survival suits, and the creation of volcanic eruptions through reaction of liquid nitrogen and water (link from the 2024 program is available here). Most of these ateliers are focused on a specific object (e.g., rock sample) or replicating specific natural process.”
At the end of this section, we add a couple of paragraphs to address the question regarding how we present different career paths during the experiment:
“In addition, by combining the presentation, video material, and hands-on experience in simulating data collection, we aim to highlight the field's interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary aspects. Throughout the experiment, we emphasize the contributions of each discipline involved. For instance, besides the evident role of geophysicists, who typically lead surveys, we also discuss the instruments built by engineers with different backgrounds (electrical, mechanical, and computer engineers), without whom the seagoing experiment would not be possible. Note that our team includes researchers and engineers with different field of expertise and career stages, and competent to answer questions about the aspect of the presented professional paths. Another example is the participation of biologists, which is highlighted by introducing a whale model and explaining the importance of environment protection.
Furthermore, we state that the photographs and video materials we present are often taken and compiled by professionals who sometimes join our adventures. Moreover, we discuss life at sea and mention less evident but critical roles and contribution of professionals: chefs who prepare meals for the crew, doctors on board, technicians, and professional sailors and captains. In addition to depicting wide range of professions involved in marine experiments, highlighting these roles underscores that every successful survey relies on teamwork, aiming to inspire participants to value collaboration.”
Results and discussion: I appreciate that this section both reports the data and attempts to interpret it. However, I was very, very confused by Figure 7, even after reading the figure caption and description in the results section. I realized that my confusion came from the fact that the figure appears to compare the results from each administration of the quiz, making it seem like the results of FDS1, for example, are significantly lower than the results of High School. I eventually figured out that Figure 7a was showing the total number of questions answered by the total number of participants (and is therefore skewed based on how many individuals participated in each event), but this part of the figure did not help me understand how well participants did overall. I was also confused by the bold numbers at the top of the bars in Figure 7a, because the caption does not explain what the percentage represents. In the discussion, I wish there was more in-depth and detailed analysis of why some questions scored so low, both before and after the experiment (ex: FDS1, Question 2).
Thank you for the comment. We recognize that the way we presented results in panel A is confusing and therefore modified the figure to include the percent of improvement observed for each group, normalized to the number of participants. Please see the attached document.
Your comment was very insightful, as it made us realize that the low improvement in the FDS 2 group is because this group provided most of the correct answers to the quiz questions even before the atelier; therefore, the improvement could not be much greater. We include this point in the text.
Regarding the reasons some questions scored so low (e.g., the 2nd question for the high school group), we are afraid that, given the limited interaction we had with the students and their professors, we are not able to provide a solid answer. In addition, we do not have another group that took the same set of quizzes to compare with. We can only speculate that the concept depicted in the question was unfamiliar to the students before the atelier, and that during the atelier, we did not go deep enough into explaining it. Here, we provide the sentences that we inserted in the manuscript:
“Based on the limited interaction with the students (we do not know the specifics of their background and concepts covered in the classroom) and the fact that this particular set of quiz questions was conducted only once does not allow us to provide further insights regarding the possible reasons; we can only speculate that the concept is not covered by elementary physics thought in school and for the most of the students it was the first time they heard about it. Following this experience, the challenge for us in the future will be to work more closely with high-school professors and dedicate time during the atelier to explain the less-known concepts. In contrast, questions 4 and 5, which their professors identified as challenging, after the atelier were answered correctly by almost all participants (25 out of 26).”
This emphasizes the need to collaborate more closely with the physics professors in constructing the quizzes, as we outline in our concluding remarks, as suggested by Reviewer 1. The added text is inserted below:
“In parallel, we will also work on improving the quizzes by collaborating more closely with schoolteachers to adapt them to the school curriculum. In addition, we will eliminate multiple-choice questions as they pose problems at the evaluation stage (currently, the answer is considered correct if at least two correct answers are selected). Finally, we will be updating our presentation with the latest video material as we continue to collect it while at sea.”
A general comment: The placement of figures does not match well with the text. For example, I was confused by Figure 2 (page 3) until I got to the description on page 4.
We recognize that the distribution of the figures is not ideal, and we will make sure that their placement is adequate in the final version of the manuscript.
In addition to the main concerns, we modified the text following the list you provided. The editorial corrections have been made, accordingly; we have also arranged the references cited in the text in alphabetical order and added a sentence explaining why the experiment targeted a younger audience. Regarding the latter, and following your suggestion, we insert the following sentence:
“There are many examples of playful ways that our colleagues worldwide have designed to showcase research in Geology, primarily targeting younger audiences, to present the field as a potential career path.”
Kind regards,
Milena on behalf of all Co-Authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Milena Marjanovic, 28 Nov 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4799', Sima Mousavi, 04 Nov 2025
This manuscript is a valuable contribution to geoscience education and public engagement. It combines a hands-on experimental model with quantitative assessment in a way that is new for Marine Geosciences. The approach is engaging, innovative, and clearly shows educational value and outreach impact. The paper fits well within the scope of Geoscience Communication.
Below are comments and questions to improve clarity and completeness.
I enjoyed reading the introduction and found the video material excellent, it brings the experiment to life and effectively demonstrates the hands-on nature of the activity.
I appreciate the use of the Spilhaus projection in Figure 1. it’s a great choice for communicating the oceanic perspective.
Please explain what “fast,” “ultrafast,” and “slow” represent in Figure 1 and clarify them in the text.
Line 28 - we have already conducted -> we conducted
Line 65 - Could you briefly explain whether there is a difference in data quality between dynamite and air-bubble sources? It would also be helpful to mention whether air bubbles have any environmental impact on marine life, similar to or different from dynamite.
Line 87 - qualitatitevly -> qualitatively
Line 90 – concived > conceived
Line 313 - Interesting psychological observation :)Line 341 - What would you do to improve students’ understanding of wave propagation in future sessions?
Line 423 - audience > audience
Line 434 - What changes would you make to the quizzes?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4799-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Milena Marjanovic, 05 Nov 2025
Dear Dr. Mousavi,
We would like to thank you for your positive comments regarding our work and constructive suggestions for improving our manuscript. Each of the concerns you raised, we address below and make the adequate changes in the manuscript (which are also inserted here):
- Please explain what "fast," "ultrafast," and "slow" represent in Figure 1 and clarify them in the text.
To address this comment, we include a description of the fast-ultaslow spreading rates in the figure caption as follows:
The subduction zones (locations where oceanic plate is sliding under the continental) and mid-ocean ridges (locations where two plates are separating) is outlined and defined in Legend; The shades of gray color represent the variation of full spreading rate along mid-ocean ridges (in millimeters per year); based on the spreading rate we can distinguish the following categories: fast spreading with the spreading rate >80 mm/yr, intermediate ones with spreading rate between 40 and 80 mm/yr, slow-spreading centers with the rate varying from 20-40 mm/yr and ultraslow where the plates are separating at the rate <20 mm/yr.
Line 28 - we have already conducted -> we conducted
We modified the text accordingly.
Line 65 - Could you briefly explain whether there is a difference in data quality between dynamite and air-bubble sources? It would also be helpful to mention whether air bubbles have any environmental impact on marine life, similar to or different from dynamite.
Most comparison studies (conducted in the 1980s and 1990s) suggest that for short source-receiver offsets (i.e., multi-channel seismic), the signal produced by air guns is preferable with respect to the signal from dynamite sources. The benefits of lower frequencies and higher pressure that characterise the signal from the dynamic source become valuable for the wide-angle reflection/refraction at offsets greater than 150 km.
As elaborating on the differences is out of the scope of this study, in the text we simplify to:
"Theoretical calculations showed that although the mean pressure produced by air bubbles is ~8% of that of the signal produced by dynamite, for most of the surveys the former signal is more coherent (Staples et al., 1999). In addition, it is less dangerous for the source operation team aboard the vessel and less harmful for the ocean fauna."
To highlight that air guns still carry specific risks for marine life, in Section 3.2, we also add:
"As mentioned in the Introduction section, the harmful effects of seismic activity were significantly reduced by introducing the system of air guns instead of dynamite; however, the hazard to marine life is still present. To mitigate this, protocols for obtaining permits for seismic activities in specific areas are implemented, and the presence of a mammal observer team has become indispensable for every controlled-source seismic survey. "
Line 87 - qualitatitevly -> qualitatively and Line 90 – concived > conceived
Corrected.
Line 313 - Interesting psychological observation :)
Thank you!
Line 341 - What would you do to improve students' understanding of wave propagation in future sessions?
This is a very important remark, and to address it, we add the following sentence (and we will definitely include the simulation when conducting the experiment next time) :
"To address this gap in understanding, we consider including simplified simulations of the wave propagation during the introduction session."
Line 423 - audience > audience
Corrected.
Line 434 - What changes would you make to the quizzes?
For the meaningful improvement, we will need to work more closely with the schools, foremost to adapt the quizzes to the age of the participants (for instance, we propose one set of questions for the age range from 9 to 12, which may not be ideal); also, we noticed that multiple-choice questions pose problems for the evaluation.
Following the above, in the text we insert the following sentence:
"In parallel, we will also work on improving the quizzes by collaborating more closely with school teachers to adapt them to the school curriculum. In addition, we will eliminate multiple-choice questions as they pose problems at the evaluation stage (currently, the answer is considered correct if at least two correct answers are selected). "
Once again, thank you for your encouraging evaluation. We hope we have addressed all your concerns.
Kind regards,
Milena Marjanovic on behalf of the authors
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4799-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Milena Marjanovic, 05 Nov 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4799', Maya Pincus, 27 Nov 2025
It was a joy to read about your creative method for making “obscure” research methods visible, and for engaging young learners in authentic science, which, as you convey, is sometimes challenging in academia. The description of your experiment is very clear, which makes it easy for readers to understand your design, and also makes it possible for other researchers to repeat the experiment. Below are my suggestions for each section, followed by some general comments. The attached document contains line-by-line suggestions for technical corrections. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like any elaboration.
Introduction: While the first paragraph creates a compelling narrative about the history of seismic measurements, I think it could be strengthened by references to literature describing those early discoveries. The same thing goes for the early methods described in the second paragraph. I also wonder if there is any research to support your claim that offshore seismic surveys are “obscure and unknown.”
Figure 2: I love the ocean-centered projection, as it reinforces your point that oceans hide so much of Earth’s crust. However, I think the focus on plate boundaries, and especially mid-ocean ridge spreading rates, distracts from the point you are making about earthquake frequency. I recommend that you either switch this figure or also include Figure 2a from the Chen et al. (2023) paper, which shows earthquakes on the same map projection.
Approaches and methods: In the first paragraph, I think the examples of outreach should be described in more detail so that an unfamiliar reader would understand the comparison to your experiment (i.e. what is a “gumby” suit?). (Note: I was not able to open the links provided. If they illustrate what I am saying here, feel free to disregard this comment). I love the inclusion of the LEGO whale to make this even more realistic, and would love to see an expanded description of all the career paths highlighted in your experiment. This makes me wonder: What are you doing to directly teach students about these career possibilities?
Results and discussion: I appreciate that this section both reports the data and attempts to interpret it. However, I was very, very confused by Figure 7, even after reading the figure caption and description in the results section. I realized that my confusion came from the fact that the figure appears to compare the results from each administration of the quiz, making it seem like the results of FDS1, for example, are significantly lower than the results of High School. I eventually figured out that Figure 7a was showing the total number of questions answered by the total number of participants (and is therefore skewed based on how many individuals participated in each event), but this part of the figure did not help me understand how well participants did overall. I was also confused by the bold numbers at the top of the bars in Figure 7a, because the caption does not explain what the percentage represents. In the discussion, I wish there was more in-depth and detailed analysis of why some questions scored so low, both before and after the experiment (ex: FDS1, Question 2).
A general comment: The placement of figures does not match well with the text. For example, I was confused by Figure 2 (page 3) until I got to the description on page 4.
Overall, very interesting to read. Congratulations on your successful outreach activity!
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Milena Marjanovic, 28 Nov 2025
Dear Dr Pincus,
We are pleased that you find our experiment creative, and we sincerely appreciate your effort in providing detailed feedback. Your final remark, qualifying our effort as successful is very motivating. Thank you!
Below, to the best of our ability, we provide the answers to the concerns you raised, aiming to clarify and address each point thoroughly.
Introduction: While the first paragraph creates a compelling narrative about the history of seismic measurements, I think it could be strengthened by references to literature describing those early discoveries. The same thing goes for the early methods described in the second paragraph. I also wonder if there is any research to support your claim that offshore seismic surveys are “obscure and unknown.”
To address the first part of the comment, we provided references for the early discoveries and the method description.
Regarding the second part, while no direct study supports our claim that offshore seismic surveys are obscured and unknown, this statement reflects our experience and the impressions gained through interactions with the public and colleagues in other Earth science domains, which we believe are relevant.
Figure 2: I love the ocean-centered projection, as it reinforces your point that oceans hide so much of Earth’s crust. However, I think the focus on plate boundaries, and especially mid-ocean ridge spreading rates, distracts from the point you are making about earthquake frequency. I recommend that you either switch this figure or also include Figure 2a from the Chen et al. (2023) paper, which shows earthquakes on the same map projection.
Thank you for your comment. To address your concern, we decided to add a panel showing the distribution of earthquakes in addition to the plate boundaries, rather than simply replacing the existing map.
Approaches and methods: In the first paragraph, I think the examples of outreach should be described in more detail so that an unfamiliar reader would understand the comparison to your experiment (i.e. what is a “gumby” suit?). (Note: I was not able to open the links provided. If they illustrate what I am saying here, feel free to disregard this comment). I love the inclusion of the LEGO whale to make this even more realistic, and would love to see an expanded description of all the career paths highlighted in your experiment. This makes me wonder: What are you doing to directly teach students about these career possibilities?
We apologize for the broken links and provide both of them below:
Open House Lamont: https://openhouse.ldeo.columbia.edu/content/exhibits
Fete de la Science at IPGP : https://www.ipgp.fr/actus-et-agenda/actualites/fete-de-la-science-2024-a-lipgp/
Thank you for pointing this out. We will ensure that the links we insert into the final version of the manuscript are clickable.
To address the concern raised by your comment, we provide an additional description of the experiments cited and add a sentence that states the main conceptual difference with respect to our experiment. The modified text is inserted below:
“There are many examples of playful ways that our colleagues worldwide have designed to showcase research in Geology, primarily targeting younger audiences, to present the field as a potential career path. For instance, every Fall, the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory from Columbia Climate School in the USA opens its doors to engage with the public through a wide range of ateliers, including exposition of deep-sea cores, trying on immersing survival suits, and the creation of volcanic eruptions through reaction of liquid nitrogen and water (link from the 2024 program is available here). Most of these ateliers are focused on a specific object (e.g., rock sample) or replicating specific natural process.”
At the end of this section, we add a couple of paragraphs to address the question regarding how we present different career paths during the experiment:
“In addition, by combining the presentation, video material, and hands-on experience in simulating data collection, we aim to highlight the field's interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary aspects. Throughout the experiment, we emphasize the contributions of each discipline involved. For instance, besides the evident role of geophysicists, who typically lead surveys, we also discuss the instruments built by engineers with different backgrounds (electrical, mechanical, and computer engineers), without whom the seagoing experiment would not be possible. Note that our team includes researchers and engineers with different field of expertise and career stages, and competent to answer questions about the aspect of the presented professional paths. Another example is the participation of biologists, which is highlighted by introducing a whale model and explaining the importance of environment protection.
Furthermore, we state that the photographs and video materials we present are often taken and compiled by professionals who sometimes join our adventures. Moreover, we discuss life at sea and mention less evident but critical roles and contribution of professionals: chefs who prepare meals for the crew, doctors on board, technicians, and professional sailors and captains. In addition to depicting wide range of professions involved in marine experiments, highlighting these roles underscores that every successful survey relies on teamwork, aiming to inspire participants to value collaboration.”
Results and discussion: I appreciate that this section both reports the data and attempts to interpret it. However, I was very, very confused by Figure 7, even after reading the figure caption and description in the results section. I realized that my confusion came from the fact that the figure appears to compare the results from each administration of the quiz, making it seem like the results of FDS1, for example, are significantly lower than the results of High School. I eventually figured out that Figure 7a was showing the total number of questions answered by the total number of participants (and is therefore skewed based on how many individuals participated in each event), but this part of the figure did not help me understand how well participants did overall. I was also confused by the bold numbers at the top of the bars in Figure 7a, because the caption does not explain what the percentage represents. In the discussion, I wish there was more in-depth and detailed analysis of why some questions scored so low, both before and after the experiment (ex: FDS1, Question 2).
Thank you for the comment. We recognize that the way we presented results in panel A is confusing and therefore modified the figure to include the percent of improvement observed for each group, normalized to the number of participants. Please see the attached document.
Your comment was very insightful, as it made us realize that the low improvement in the FDS 2 group is because this group provided most of the correct answers to the quiz questions even before the atelier; therefore, the improvement could not be much greater. We include this point in the text.
Regarding the reasons some questions scored so low (e.g., the 2nd question for the high school group), we are afraid that, given the limited interaction we had with the students and their professors, we are not able to provide a solid answer. In addition, we do not have another group that took the same set of quizzes to compare with. We can only speculate that the concept depicted in the question was unfamiliar to the students before the atelier, and that during the atelier, we did not go deep enough into explaining it. Here, we provide the sentences that we inserted in the manuscript:
“Based on the limited interaction with the students (we do not know the specifics of their background and concepts covered in the classroom) and the fact that this particular set of quiz questions was conducted only once does not allow us to provide further insights regarding the possible reasons; we can only speculate that the concept is not covered by elementary physics thought in school and for the most of the students it was the first time they heard about it. Following this experience, the challenge for us in the future will be to work more closely with high-school professors and dedicate time during the atelier to explain the less-known concepts. In contrast, questions 4 and 5, which their professors identified as challenging, after the atelier were answered correctly by almost all participants (25 out of 26).”
This emphasizes the need to collaborate more closely with the physics professors in constructing the quizzes, as we outline in our concluding remarks, as suggested by Reviewer 1. The added text is inserted below:
“In parallel, we will also work on improving the quizzes by collaborating more closely with schoolteachers to adapt them to the school curriculum. In addition, we will eliminate multiple-choice questions as they pose problems at the evaluation stage (currently, the answer is considered correct if at least two correct answers are selected). Finally, we will be updating our presentation with the latest video material as we continue to collect it while at sea.”
A general comment: The placement of figures does not match well with the text. For example, I was confused by Figure 2 (page 3) until I got to the description on page 4.
We recognize that the distribution of the figures is not ideal, and we will make sure that their placement is adequate in the final version of the manuscript.
In addition to the main concerns, we modified the text following the list you provided. The editorial corrections have been made, accordingly; we have also arranged the references cited in the text in alphabetical order and added a sentence explaining why the experiment targeted a younger audience. Regarding the latter, and following your suggestion, we insert the following sentence:
“There are many examples of playful ways that our colleagues worldwide have designed to showcase research in Geology, primarily targeting younger audiences, to present the field as a potential career path.”
Kind regards,
Milena on behalf of all Co-Authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Milena Marjanovic, 28 Nov 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 239 | 107 | 31 | 377 | 39 | 24 | 20 |
- HTML: 239
- PDF: 107
- XML: 31
- Total: 377
- Supplement: 39
- BibTeX: 24
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Simon Besançon
Souradeep Mahato
David Hautemayou
Ted Luc
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3961 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(59 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
This manuscript is a valuable contribution to geoscience education and public engagement. It combines a hands-on experimental model with quantitative assessment in a way that is new for Marine Geosciences. The approach is engaging, innovative, and clearly shows educational value and outreach impact. The paper fits well within the scope of Geoscience Communication.
Below are comments and questions to improve clarity and completeness.
I enjoyed reading the introduction and found the video material excellent, it brings the experiment to life and effectively demonstrates the hands-on nature of the activity.
I appreciate the use of the Spilhaus projection in Figure 1. it’s a great choice for communicating the oceanic perspective.
Please explain what “fast,” “ultrafast,” and “slow” represent in Figure 1 and clarify them in the text.
Line 28 - we have already conducted -> we conducted
Line 65 - Could you briefly explain whether there is a difference in data quality between dynamite and air-bubble sources? It would also be helpful to mention whether air bubbles have any environmental impact on marine life, similar to or different from dynamite.
Line 87 - qualitatitevly -> qualitatively
Line 90 – concived > conceived
Line 313 - Interesting psychological observation :)
Line 341 - What would you do to improve students’ understanding of wave propagation in future sessions?
Line 423 - audience > audience
Line 434 - What changes would you make to the quizzes?