Both reviewers agree that the study of Just et al. constitutes a generally well-done and significant contribution to our knowledge of the regional glacial-interglacial climate and environmental history of the Balkan region based on the longest continuous record of magnetic minerals available for Europe. The reviewers also provided very detailed and highly constructive suggestions on how this study can be further improved.
In particular, they asked for a revision of the age model used, a clarification of the division between Units 1 and 2 suggested in the study, a more detailed discussion of the magnetic patterns observed, the inclusion of high-temperature susceptibility measurements, a re-evaluation of the interpretation of cold glacials in Unit 2, a more precise formulations of the goals and hypotheses of the paper, a clarification of the discussion regarding changing lithogenic sediment supply and the indicator value of greigite, and an inclusion of NRM data.
Considering the response of the authors, I feel that these concerns and questions can be adequately addressed. I therefore invite the authors to submit a revised version for a final decision, which is based on their responses to the suggestions of the referees published during the interactive discussion.

The authors did a very good job in revising their ms. However, what is needed before the paper can be published is a justification of the change in authorship and a short deceleration of the corresponding author that the newly added co-authors agree with these changes in authorship.