Rotations took place between 66 and 55 million years ago, and after the main folding event that shaped the range. Although the exact tectonic mechanism remains unclear, we suggest that subduction in eastern Mexico played the key role in driving the bending of the Sierra Madre Oriental.

We analyzed the magnetic signal preserved in the rocks together with fracture patterns in 25 folded structures.

Our results show that the mountain belt rotated almost 90° to the left (counterclockwise) in the northern part of the orocline and about 30° to the right (clockwise) in the southern part.

Curves of this kind are known as oroclines. The exact timing and the process that created the orocline in northeast Mexico remain uncertain, with previous estimates ranging from 120 to 50 million years ago. To better understand its formation, we studied Cretaceous rocks across this curved region.

The Sierra Madre Oriental in Mexico is a curved mountain range formed as a result of the subduction of the Pacific Ocean plates beneath North America.

Its curve, about 100° wide and opening to the southwest, developed after the mountains were already built.

Indeed. And the worst part is that besides the difference in opinions the correspondence has been elegant and scientifically engaging. But I arrived at least 3 reviews late. My review is useless because everything I disagreed was already discussed.

It should be the editorial team who takes the decision to accept the paper or not. It is an open discussion dudes! If you pass it everyone will see that a fair number of reviewers disagreed and maybe someone writes a comment. Or otherwise, take the decision of a reject. But do not ask EIGHT people.

This is frustrating, I think the points raised by all reviewers where valid and proposed in a polite and constructive tone. The rebuttal letter, although I disagree with many of their points is polite and constructive. There is no point on keeping the argument until a couple of reviewers agree.

The authors, systematically have answered they are not doing that to 4 reviewers. I may be wrong, but my feeling is that they will do it again with the next 4 reviews. So in the end Open Research Europe editorial team is doing nothing. Sending it again to review over and over. #AcademicChatter.

I am one of the 8 (EIGHT), different reviewers that are raising the very same points. The authors have answered to some of them positively and to others they have rebutted. The paper contains some provocative ideas and it could be accepted if the authors present them as hypothesis to be tested.