Dear Dr. Inyurt,
I have received now the reports of two Reviewers.
One of them suggests minor revisions and the other Reviewer suggest mayor revision to your work.
Please, consider every comment and corrections given by them, and provide also a detailed answer to their report with a list of all the changes made in the revised version of your manuscript.
Kind regards and looking forward your revised manuscript,
Ana

Dear Dr. Inyurt,
I have carefully read the Reviewers' reports and your answers to them, and, even though I agree that your work presents very interesting results that should be published in Annales Geophysicae, I consider that there are still some points you should consider, before your paper is fully accepted for publication in this journal.

Here are my comments and corrections:

1) Line 21: “...from the both models ...” should be “...from both models ...”. That is, delete “the”.

2) Line 51: the “11-year solar activity” variability is already included when you say “solar cycle”, so I would delete it.

3) The Introduction should say briefly what is going to be studied in the paper, so include a paragraph at the end of the Introduction section with this information.

4) Equation (1) needs a reference. The Reviewer already mention this, but it is still missing. So please, provide a reference for this equation.

5) line 68: Delete “of” at the end of the line.

6) Caption of Figure 1 should say something like: Stations analyzed in the present work.
And include in the caption the names (and maybe the geographic coordinates).

7) I would delete equation 2 since the correlation coefficient is very common in our area of research. So I think there is no need in including it. Otherwise the variables in it should be explained. In addition, it is not mantion in the text.

8) In caption of Figure 2: What do you mean by abnormal days?

9) The caption of Figure 3 should include all the explanation of the figure. Instead of inside the figure, in the figure caption it should say which line correspond to which data. Also, the axes names are missing.

10) In caption of Figure 4, it applies the same that I comment for Figure 3. And delete the titles inside the figures. Everything should be said in the captions.

11) Lines 170 to 175. F10.7 for all the days you mention have similar values. So why you say they are moderate for the first set and high for the second?

12) Lines 200-201: “(Arikan et al., 2012; Zolotov et al., 2012) determined some ...” should be “Arikan et al. (2012) and Zolotov et al. (2012) determined some ...”

13) Line 203: “...and They evaluated ...”, “They” should be “they”

14) Line 208: “(Şentürk et al., 2018) study ...” should be “Şentürk et al. (2018) study ...”

15) Line 209: “...suggest that A multidisciplinary ...”, “A” should be “a”

16) Line 168: "The tables ..." should be "Tables ..."

17) How can you be sure of the following sentence in line 176: " As there was strong solar activity, the numbers of anomalies were higher than the numbers in the days 288-292"?
I would rather say: "The number of anomalies was higher than during days 288-292 possibly due to solar activity was stronger during these last days." for example. Or something like this.

18) Line 182: What is "Totally TEC difference" ? Is it the sum for the 24 hours of each day ? You should explain this.

19) In the discussion and conclusions you could mention something about the more complex analysis to cope with the detection of earthquake precursors in the ionosphere when solar activity is high and there are geomagnetic storms, such as that proposed by He et al. (2012) who use wavelet analysis. Even if you do not use them.

Please, consider every comment and correction I make, and provide also a detailed answer if necessary, with a list of all the changes made in the revised version of your manuscript.

Kind regards and looking forward your revised manuscript,
Ana

Dear Dr. Inyurt,
I am pleased to inform you that the manuscript "Monitoring potential ionospheric changes caused by Van earthquake (Mw 7.2)" has now been accepted for publication in Annales Geophysicae.
Thank you for considering our journal for the publication of your research.
Kind regards,
Ana Elias