Dear author,
Thanks for providing responses to two reviewer of your article “Better molecular preservation of organic matter in an oxic than in a sulphidic depositional environment: evidence from of Thalassiphora pelagica (Dinoflagellata, Eocene) cysts”.

Both sets of responses satisfactorily addressed the reviewer´s comments and questions, and I am looking forward to reviewing the second version of the ms. Please pay particular attention to the question on good and bad preservation and oxygen exposure conditions, that will better deliver your conclusions.

Sincerely yours
Silvio Pantoja-Gutiérrez
Associate Editor

June 4, 2020
Dear authors,
Thanks for providing thorough responses to both reviewers. Before I make the final recommendation, please make some editorial corrections:
1. P. 2, L. 50, remove comma

2. P. 3, L. 67. “In practice, the degree of molecular preservation will be the degree.” Replace “degree.”
3. Page 3, L. 74. Delete parenthesis in “(intermolecular) cross linking rather than polymerization, ”

4. P. 5, L. 20. “The molecular structure of cysts of this species that were deposited under anaerobic sulphate reducing conditions has already been discussed (2007). ”

Remove the sentence since the molecular structure is mentioned in the next sentence.


5. P.4, L.1. “and some also in suboxic environments. ” Is it possible to say what “some” means? 10% or something?

6. P.10, L. 51- Those short sentences belong to a single paragraph

7. P. 21, L. 55 (Conclusion)
“the same organism (T. pelagia) ” is unclear. You mean same species (T. pelagia). Please rewrite accordingly
P. 21, L. 74. Remove comma in “the cysts from the Rhine Graben, ”

P. 22, L. 77. Remove “Nicely”. You have not shown scientifically (this is a scientific journal) that this is a “nice” demonstration.

Thanks for submitting your original work to Biogeosciences

Bets regards

Silvio Pantoja-Gutiérrez
Associate Editor