Reply to "Comment on 'A crustal thickness map of Africa derived from a global gravity field model using Euler deconvolution"'

We address the comment by Reid et al. on our paper (2011, Geophys. J. Int., 187). In this reply we clarify details about the data processing, modelling and interpretation showing, counter to the claims by Reid et al., that the effects of using free air gravity data are not 'deleterious', and that the choices of modelling parameters are not 'grievous'. The processing steps could have been explained in greater detail, and a lack of clarity about them underpins many of the issues raised. We find little scientific justification in the arguments presented by Reid et al. to revise either the crustal thickness estimates presented in our paper, or the reported uncertainty (±5 km) of those estimates.