Abstract Concerning our publication Intracontinental fault reactivation in high heat production areas of central Australia: insights from apatite fission track thermochronology we have identified the presence of rmr0 values that are erroneously high, due to an error in the code used to calculate these values from grain chemistry. However, we demonstrate that this overestimation does not have an appreciable impact on the produced inverse history models. Both the timing and rates of cooling appear largely unaffected during the remodeling with corrected or alternative kinetic parameters, with only minor impact on the modeled temperature. In all cases the initial paths are well within uncertainty envelopes of remodeled samples, and the original cooling events and interpretations remain valid. This comment highlights the need for purpose‐designed quality control protocols during the calculation of a unitless parameter such as rmr0 in large analytical data sets, which is difficult to manually validate. Here we recommend automated checks on both the final calculated rmr0 values and the intermediate chemical values as atoms per formula unit (apfu), to validate these are within mathematically and geologically allowable ranges.
Nixon et al. (Sun,) studied this question.