Response to comment on "A reporting protocol for thermochronologic modeling illustrated with data from the Grand Canyon"

We suggested a reporting protocol for thermochronologic modeling with which to arrange and explain the choice of thermal history modeling inputs, and emphasized the need to fully depict model outputs (Flowers et al., 2015). Our goals were to improve transparency and reproducibility in thermochronologic data interpretation and motivate a broader discussion of this topic. We welcome the contribution by Gallagher (2016), and agree that clearly conveying how well a preferred thermal history model outcome honors the data is essential to allow evaluation of the derived conclusions and how they can be tested. However, in our view, how this goal is best achieved depends largely on the modeling approach. Rather than posing a one-size-fits-all scheme, in this case we suggest that the developers of the modeling software and their user communities should define "best practices" to which users should adhere.