The paper aims to model surface waves generated by shallow submarine volcanic eruptions with a prescribed Gaussian heat flux at the seabed using the numerical simulation tool PSOM. However, the way the eruption is presented is not physically appropriate for the problem being studied. A volcanic eruption injects mass, momentum, and pressure into the water column over a short time, whereas a heat flux only produces slow buoyant motion. The manuscript does not explain how the chosen thermal forcing is related to an actual eruption in terms of energy, duration, or strength. Thus, it is not clear why the resulting surface response should be interpreted as tsunami generation.  The model predicts very high water temperatures near the source (hundreds of degrees Celsius), but the fluid is treated as a single-phase liquid. At such temperatures, boiling and vapour formation would occur and strongly affect the flow. Since these processes are not included, the simulated plume and the associated surface deformation are not meaningful. Finally, key eruption parameters such as vent size, eruption rate, or duration are not included. The entire source is defined by an arbitrary heat flux, which makes the results difficult to interpret and impossible to relate to real volcanic scenarios.

For these reasons, the physical basis of the model is weak, and the conclusions about tsunami generation are not supported. I recommend rejection.

The idea presented by the author in this paper is interesting: what is the contribution of heat flux during a submarine volcano eruption on the sea surface displacement. However, this brief communication is not satisfying enough alone and should be a proper article. Indeed, this idea needs a better literature review on the mechanisms, the modeling and the physics behind. It also needs a validation, or a link to a real event or experiments. For example, to what the chosen values of heat flux correspond? Furthermore, I agree with Referee 1 overall, particularly on the fact that at this temperature (600 degrees near the volcano in the paper) the fluid cannot be considered as liquid water, and I also agree on the duration issue. For all these reasons I recommend rejection, and that the author works on a more complete new article.