Dear Authors:

Thank you for contribution of your manuscript, entitles “Evaluating sensitivity of silicate mineral dissolution rates to physical weathering using a soil evolution model (SoilGen2.25)”, to Biogeosciences.
I studied referee’s comments and your replies. Both referees made positive evaluations on your work, but raised several concerns. The referee #1 recommended presenting the major hypothesis. Your reply seems satisfactory, and I recommend putting these statements into your revised manuscript in an explicit manner. The referee #2 pointed out that Figure 2 was taken from Finke (2012). Except review papers, I don’t think that it is a good choice to show your previous results again in another paper even in “Materials and methods” section. In general, it is enough to show an appropriate reference to the result; this applies also to Figure 4 (b). In terms of model evaluation, you cited the chronosequence study by Sauer et al. (2012): page 13839 of the discussion paper. However, for most readers, it is unclear how the model performed well. Please add several statements as you made in the reply.
Finally, I conclude that the manuscript is acceptable after minor revision. I am waiting your revised manuscript.

Dear Authors:

Thank you for contribution to Biogeosciences and for sending your revised manuscript.
I confirmed that you responded adequately to my comments.
Also, I contacted with two referees about the open discussion on your manuscript.
Finally, I conclude that your manuscript is acceptable for publication.