Reply to a Comment to a paper by Pino et al. (2009)This is a rather unusual comment that focuses on how a specific figure was constructed rather than on actual scientific results. The figure in question (Figure 9 from Pino et al. 2009) does not even show new data or results, but is simply a summary of slip models that have been proposed in the literature for the 1908 earthquake. All models describe slip distributions from coseis- mic elevation changes except for one, derived by Pino et al. (2000) based on waveform modeling of historical seismograms.Published229-2313.1. Fisica dei terremotiJCR Journalreserve
We reply to a comment by Messina et al., who strongly criticized our paper on the San Pio Fault, by ...
The article by Camassi and Castelli (2013) (hereinafter CC13) deals with the 1346, northern Italy ea...
The article by Camassi and Castelli (2013) (hereinafter CC13) deals with the 1346, northern Italy ea...
This is a rather unusual comment that focuses on how a specific figure was constructed rather than o...
This is a rather unusual comment that focuses on how a specific figure was constructed rather than o...
This is a rather unusual comment that focuses on how a specific figure was constructed rather than o...
none4This is a rather unusual comment that focuses on how a specific figure was constructed rather t...
We reply to the comments of De Natale and Pino (2013) on the paper “Are the source models of the M ...
This is a rather unusual comment that focuses on how a specific figure was constructed rather than o...
We reply to the comments of De Natale and Pino (2013) on the paper ‘Are the source models of the M 7...
We reply to the comments of De Natale and Pino (2013) on the paper “Are the source models of the M ...
We reply to the comments of De Natale and Pino (2013) on the paper ‘Are the source models of the M 7...
We reply to the comments of De Natale and Pino (2013) on the paper ‘Are the source models of the M 7...
In a recent paper, important issues were raised about the identification of the fault responsible f...
We reply to a comment by Messina et al., who strongly criticized our paper on the San Pio Fault, by ...
We reply to a comment by Messina et al., who strongly criticized our paper on the San Pio Fault, by ...
The article by Camassi and Castelli (2013) (hereinafter CC13) deals with the 1346, northern Italy ea...
The article by Camassi and Castelli (2013) (hereinafter CC13) deals with the 1346, northern Italy ea...
This is a rather unusual comment that focuses on how a specific figure was constructed rather than o...
This is a rather unusual comment that focuses on how a specific figure was constructed rather than o...
This is a rather unusual comment that focuses on how a specific figure was constructed rather than o...
none4This is a rather unusual comment that focuses on how a specific figure was constructed rather t...
We reply to the comments of De Natale and Pino (2013) on the paper “Are the source models of the M ...
This is a rather unusual comment that focuses on how a specific figure was constructed rather than o...
We reply to the comments of De Natale and Pino (2013) on the paper ‘Are the source models of the M 7...
We reply to the comments of De Natale and Pino (2013) on the paper “Are the source models of the M ...
We reply to the comments of De Natale and Pino (2013) on the paper ‘Are the source models of the M 7...
We reply to the comments of De Natale and Pino (2013) on the paper ‘Are the source models of the M 7...
In a recent paper, important issues were raised about the identification of the fault responsible f...
We reply to a comment by Messina et al., who strongly criticized our paper on the San Pio Fault, by ...
We reply to a comment by Messina et al., who strongly criticized our paper on the San Pio Fault, by ...
The article by Camassi and Castelli (2013) (hereinafter CC13) deals with the 1346, northern Italy ea...
The article by Camassi and Castelli (2013) (hereinafter CC13) deals with the 1346, northern Italy ea...