The article's title reflects the content and purpose of the article?
Yes
Was the aim of the work clearly defined and successfully accomplished?
Yes
Does the article embrace contemporary issues in the area?
Yes
Does the article contain new and not published results?
Yes
Was the article clearly written and easily understood?
Easily understood
Conclusions illustrate the research results, recommendations and giving suggestions for future research
Yes
The references are full and grounded?
Partially
How adequate was the writing and used terminology?
Adequate
Remarks and suggestions to the authors of the article
The results of tectonomagnetic studies correlate very well with geodynamic studies. Therefore, it is not clear why the authors do not mention any previous geodynamic studies in this publication.
From the last ones published, I would recommend you to mention the work: Savchyn, I., Tretyak, K., Hlotov, V., Shylo, Y., Bubniak, I., Golubinka, I., & Nikulishyn, V. (2021). Recent local geodynamic processes in the Penola Strait—Lemaire Channel fault area (West Antarctica). Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia, 18(2), 202. 10.13168/AGG.2021.0018
I confirm that there is no conflict of interests regarding reviewed article.
I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.