JerMa88/TPR_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Peer review of: Uniaxial-strain control of nematic superconductivity in SrxBi2Se3 (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWER COMMENTS
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  Unfortunately authors seem to have not understood my comments regarding Hc2. The standard
 definition of Hc2 is the field at which superconductivity onsets, at a given temperature. For a uniform
 sample, the order parameter amplitude at this point is infinitesimal, so there can be no pinning
 whatsoever.
 If sample is spatially inhomogeneous, then different parts will nucleate at different temperatures. Then,
 at a given temperature different parts will have different Hc2's. That would make the whole picture
 much more complicated, and there could be "anisotropies" in "Hc2" related to the shape of domains,
 not only type of OP within them.
 In this sense, the "standard" definition of Hc2 is much more useful in my opinion (assuming sample is
 sufficiently uniform), since only symmetries of the system determine the anisotropes, and pinning is
 irrelevant. If sample is not very uniform, it is better for focus on the higher values of R/Rn. The reason
 for this is that in this regime the Hc2 measurement only picks up the most robust (in the sense of
 superconductivity) regions of the sample and thus the effective uniformity is enhanced (the less
 superconducting regions are already normal by then, and do not complicate the analysis). Indeed,
 authors say that this is where the 6fold symmetry is the most pronounced.
 On the other hand, at a weaker H field, the story is more complicated, since some regions are more
 superconducting, some less, in a realistic sample. There, the network model as authors propose may
 be relevant, but as I mentioned above, the shape of domains will matter there as well, and analysis
 will be in general much more tricky in my opinion.
 To summarize, I am still not convinced by the modeling that authors do. I would recommend that they
 try to extract the best approximation of Hc2 as they can and focus on that in their analysis. If they
 think I am wrong in my understanding -- I'd like to know why.
 Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The revisions addressed my questions. I am glad that I helped in the process.
Peer review of: Feedback-controlled active brownian colloids with space-dependent rotational dynamics (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  This manuscript has been substantially updated from the previous version, and I now recommend it
 for publication in this journal. The authors have conducted extensive experiments which now validate
 the simulation results they have found for localization. These additional efforts have greatly enhanced
 the manuscript, and emphasized the full range of new behavior that emerges from spatio-temporal
 control of DR.
  I have carefully read the revised version of the manuscript and the reply letter. The authors have
 satisfactorily addressed all my comments and even went beyond expectations. Indeed, the addition of
 new experimental data and the extensive revision of the discussion bring this work to a whole new
 level and is incomparably better than the previous version. The discussion of the non-Gaussian
 features on experimental data is now very clear. I also appreciate the use of residence times in the
 localisation part, which improves clarity and allows for a direct comparison between experiments and
 simulations. Finally, the addition of Fig 6 shows that a system can be more stable when agents are
 autonomous than when they obey to a centralised control, which is an important point in my opinion.
 This work is an important contribution in the field of programmable active matter and also for the
 fundamental understanding of spatial organisation. I therefore recommend publication in Nature
 Communications in its current form.
 Very minor comments:
 - Line 192: use lowercase v
 - Line 220 and 264: not clear why penetration is by 2v\tau and not v\tau.
 - Line 275: keep the order H/L as for the rest of the paragraph to improve clarity: “TH and TL scale as
 (L/v)^2 and L/v respectively”.
 Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
Also the figures are much better presented and discussed than in the previous version.
I therefore recommend publication in the present form of the manuscript.
 In this revised version of their paper, the authors have on one hand significantly increased the number
 of experimental and numerical analysis, on the other hand clarified and singled out the respective role
 of the two main control parameters, namely the sensorial delay \tau and the ballistic time L/v.
  The present work is not only an experimental tour de force, it also provide significant insight on how
 smart control over active systems can be achieved.
Peer review of: Real-space recipes for general topological crystalline states (2020)


RR2
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have carefully responded to all my questions in the previous report and presentation
 is improved. I would like to recommend the paper to be published in nature communication.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have addressed all my concerns and the presentation of this manuscript has greatly
 improved. The result is novel and of great impact in this subfield of symmetry protected
 topological phase. I strongly recommend publication in Nature Communication.
Peer review of: Independent phase modulation for quadruplex polarization channels enabled by chirality-assisted  (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  Overall, I'm satisfied by this revision. The paper is much more readable, the technical
 contributions become more convincing, and the derivations are more clear. Most of my concerns
 have been addressed. I particularly like the revision of S2 in the supplementary document, as I
 found it much easier to follow now. I also think the current title more accurately reflects the
 contributions of this paper.
 I don't quite agree with the text at Line 269. It sounds like it's straightforward to extend this
 method to other wavelength regimes. That's not necessarily true. Beside the fabrication and
 alignment difficulties (which the authors responded), some of the assumptions (such as the
 system being lossless ) might not be easily held in other regimes. I suggest the authors discuss
 those potential challenges rather than just claiming "the method can be extended and applied in
 other wavelength regimes".
 Other than that, I think the paper is in a good shape. Changxi Zheng
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
   I am satisfied by the authors' responses, and am happy to recommend this work for publication in
 Nature Communications.
Peer review of: Resonant thermal energy transfer to magnons in a ferromagnetic nanolayer (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors revised the manuscript and addressed the critics according to my earlier comments. I do
 not have additional comments
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  I am satisfied with the revision and the authors' responses to my comments. I would support
 acceptance. -- Tengfei Luo
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have responded in detail to my various comments, revised the main body of the
 manuscript and added to supplementary materials to improve the scientific approach to the subject
 matter. I find these improvements adequate and have no further comments or concerns with
 publishing the revised version.
Peer review of: Ultrafast coupled charge and spin dynamics in strongly correlated NiO (2020)


RR3
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 1589478662
 The authors mostly dismiss my criticisms in the second review. I find this work to be cloaked in
 many body physics, which are not adequately explained, and as far as I can understand, are
 interpretations of the authors, without concrete support. The coherent oscillations are nicely
 measured, but there is no firm evidence that this is electron spin related. The oscillations
 disappear above the Neel temperature, which is consistent with spin, but experiments such as light
 polarization dependence are lacking. The origin of the coherence is opaque, The coherent
 oscillation do not occur in the photoexcites state but in a state that is only explained as a
 photoinduced gap state, which is populated by relaxation. It takes strong optimism to believe that
 relaxation occurs from the photoexcited state to generate an energetically relaxed coherent state.
 Furthermore, the authors should indicate the strength of the observed oscillation. Is it 1 or 100%
 effect? It should be evident in the reported figures. One should not have to ask such details. The
 authors claim that they detect coherent oscillations of a many body system for the first time, and
 only one of these statements can be correct. I do not want to belabor this. If the authors wish to
 respectfully disagree, I encourage the editor to seek further opinion.
 then in the next sentence they say that similar phenomena have been detected in cuprates. I think
 Reviewer #4:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The manuscript from Gillmeister et al. reports on the ultrafast photoexcited dynamics of a charge-
 transfer insulator NiO studied by time-resolved two-photon photoemission experiments. The
 authors observed the photo-induced in gap states, of which spectral weight shows long-lived
 coherent THz oscillations. Combined with LDA+DMFT calculations on the basis of two-band t-J
 model, the oscillation is explained as that between two local many-body states consisted of S=0
 Hund excitation and triplon states photo-created in an antiferromagnetic background.
 The work is highly original and presents a convincing interpretation of the experimental results. It
 also illuminates the fundamental character on the interplay between charge and spin excitations in
 this class of charge transfer insulator. I think that the issues raised by reviewer 2 were also
 properly addressed in the rebuttal and the revised manuscript. Because of its novelty and general
 interest I strongly recommend publication of the manuscript in Nature Communications.
Peer review of: Stimulated plasmon polariton scattering (2020)


RR4 
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
4th Report on the manuscript
“Stimulated plasmon polariton scattering”, by C. Wolff and N. A. Mortensen
Following the Editor’s request I only comment on the points 4 – 7 of the Authors’ Reply. Point 6. It would be excellent if the authors answered all questions in a similar manner. Point 5. Ok.
       Point 4. The plasmon frequency increases indeed in ribbons as compared to an infinitely extended
 graphene, but whether the difference can be as large as ~50% remains unclear. This difference
 depends on the parameter qW where W is the ribbon width, but the authors only add the phrase
 “We note that the dispersion relation of such ribbons differs from that of infinitely extended
 graphene due to the lateral confinement” without giving a quantitative estimate. Why do the
 authors carefully avoid quantitative discussions?
 Point 7. This question is not answered at all. The answers of the type “We are the leading group of
 the world and everybody should believe our statements without a doubt” are unacceptable. We are
 not in a church to believe; in a theoretical paper every statement should be mathematically
 proved.
 It is well known since ~1980, i.e. 40 years before the publication of the review [33], that the
 spectrum of 2D plasmons in a gated system is linear at qd<<1 and that the plasmon frequency in
 a gated system is much smaller than in an ungated one. Thus, like with the chemical doping (point
 3), the use of electrical doping should also lead to a decrease of Q, due to the reduction of the
 plasmon frequency as compared to the ungated case. Why do the authors avoid a quantitative
 discussion here again?
Peer review of: Measurement of the spin-forbidden dark excitons in MoS2 and MoSe2 monolayers (2020)


RR3
 REVIEWER COMMENTS
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  I appreciate the authors’ efforts in addressing my questions in the response letter. I found the
 replies to most of the questions satisfying. However, I still have a few concerns before I can
 recommend publishing this work on Nature Communications.
 The major concern is the interpretation of the 4-band theory. Due to the limitation of the linewidth,
 the fine splitting was not resolved at low magnetic field. Therefore, there is no direct evidence
 confirming the 4-band theory. The fact that the fitting is not sensitive for δ<1 meV means that the
 fitting is similar to the 2-band theory, which is the case for δ=0.
 I want to clarify that I am not against the 4-band theory. Instead, I found it intriguing. However,
 objectively, the data in this manuscript does not support that the 4-band theory is better than the
 2-band theory. Rather, I found the fittings by the 2-band theory in the reply are similar to the
 fittings by the 4-band theory shown in the manuscript. I would strongly encourage authors to
 revise the manuscript to clarify that, in this work, the 2-band theory also fits well with current data.
 The authors should include the fitting results by the 2-band theory in the main text or SI, so that
 the readers could compare them with the fitting results by the 4-band theory.
 There are also a few minor concerns:
 1. In reply to comments 12, the authors discussed the g-factor of MoS2. The authors should
 include some of the discussion in the main text for the readers’ sake.
 2. In reply to comments 5, the authors presented an argument on why the δ in WSe2 can be used
 in MoSe2. I would not agree with the argument. Even based on the authors’ own argument, δ
 should be a function of the binding energy. Without knowing the exact doping of the MoSe2
 sample (the authors showed some data with local doping), one cannot assume the same binding
 energy. But this is a minor issue, as the revision of the 4-band theory discussion as mentioned in
 the major concern should fix this.
 3. In the future, I strongly suggest the authors perform the temperature dependence experiment
 suggests in comment 9. I agree with the authors that PL is complicated, and the numbers might
 not quantitatively agree. However, we are talking about the trend of temperature dependence, and
 it is hard to imagine that the trend will be completely reversed. Citing the authors’ comments,
 although the early work in ref. 7 shows a different number, but it is the temperature dependence
 in ref. 7 that reveals the existence of the dark exciton in WSe2, which can explain the unexpected
 temperature dependence of PL.
 4. I would strongly suggest the authors perform doping control in the future.
Peer review of: Giant voltage-controlled modulation of spin Hall nano-oscillator damping (2020)

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have adequately addressed all comments of all four reviewers and modified the
 manuscript accordingly. In my opinion, the manuscript can be published in Nature Communications
 without any additional revisions.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have addressed my comments. I recommend the publication of the manuscript.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
  
    The authors took into account all the referee’s comments. The authors' answers to these comments
 are constructive and professional. They are written in a friendly tone. The necessary changes have
 been made to the manuscript.
 Therefore, in my humble opinion, the manuscript in its present form CAN BE published in the Nature
 Communications.
 Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author):
 The authors have thoroughly addressed the comments of of all 4 reviewers in the manuscript text and
 in their responses. The manuscript is suitable for publication in the present form.
Peer review of: Creation of acoustic vortex knots (2020)


RR2
Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have answered all my questions and applied the requested changes. Therefore, I
 recommend this paper for acceptance.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 This reviewer appreciates the thorough responses and additional content that the authors have
 provided in their revised manuscript, and believes that the authors have addressed all of the concerns
 brought up in the initial review. As a result, I recommend that this manuscript is ready for publication
 in Nature Communications.
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 I am satisfied with the way the authors have addressed my comments. I do recognize that no one has
 demonstrated the creation of 3D acoustic holograms in air using such a compact platform (as it is also
 clear from a very recent review on the topic: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5132629).
 Prior to publication, I think the article should be edited to fix some clunky sentences and grammatical
 errors. For example, in the new "Discussion", the authors have basically copy-pasted the comments
 given as responses to the authors; I expect the authors to do a better job and create a cohesive
 paragraph that reads well. For example, saying "This subject deserves deep and careful study and
 would be the next step of our research" in the article is not needed; it makes sense as a response to a
 reviewer but not in an article.
Peer review of: Vernier frequency division with dual-microresonator solitons (2020)

 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The author's change to the paper answered my question about detection. I recommend publication.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
   Reviewer #2 did not share her/his comments with the authors, and just send a positive recommendation to
 the editors.
  I thank the authors for considering my comments carefully and would like to recommend the manuscript for
 publications without further changes.
Peer review of: Dielectric ordering of water molecules arranged in a dipolar lattice (2020)


RR2  
 <b>REVIEWER COMMENTS</B> Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors addressed our comments mostly well.
 Publication is recommended.
  In the revised manuscript, the authors present additional experimental and theoretical data to indicate
 the observation of dielectric order-disorder transition. The advantage of the nano-cage for the
 stabilization of dielectric order in H2O should be highlighted more, comparing to other nanostructures
 that have been used in previous efforts. This could be the most significant part in this paper. The
 authors mention that water molecular in channels at a distance of ~5 Å with an interchannel
 separation of ~10 Å prevents the formation of hydrogen networks while electric dipole-dipole
 interactions remain effective. Since there are potentials for bio-compatible nanoelectronic applications,
 a natural and important question would be what is the size limit for this dielectric order? A size range
 should be expected in the paper and how to experimentally achieve that? By the size and shape
 control of the nano-cage or other strategies? By addressing the above concerns, I believe this paper
 could be considered to be published in Nature communications.
 Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
 I find the manuscript almost ready for publication, but I would like the authors to consider my
 comments below before final publication.
 The authors have largely improved the manuscript following the recommendations of the referees.
 My main concerns where on the simulation side, where I felt that the original manuscript results did
 not solidly support the conclusions.
 The authors have performed new simulations with increased system sizes and checked that indeed the
 ordering of the molecules is driven by long range electrostatic interactions.
 I also liked the addition of fig 2 c, where now the temperature dependent dielectric maximum is fitted
 to a model which very nicely shows that
 the phase transition is of order-disorder type. While the authors do not cite this, the behavior is the
 same of a relaxor ferroelectric. Indeed the authors already say in the new text added right above Fig 4,
 that there is already some ordering of the water above the transition temperature. I would like the
 authors to comment on this and connect this to other observations of relaxor ferroelectric behavior in
 water. Can the authors comment on the possible size of the ordered domains?
 Can other type of molecules be in the channels, acting as "dopants" or impurities which lead the
 different domains?
 How is the estimated initial water occupation computed?
 I believe that in the section where this is discussed (right above the beginning of the DFT part) this
 additional discussion is necessary.
 With this I feel the manuscript will be ready for publication.

 Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author):
 The authors have nicely addressed my comments as well as those from other reviewers. I recommend
 the publication in Nature Communications as it is.
Peer review of: On quantum gravity tests with composite particles (2020)


RR3
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have taken into account the points I raised regarding the data extraction to my
 satisfaction. While this had some impact on the overall results, as the authors pointed out, the
 main conclusions remain the same, and I agree with them, that carefully performed experiments
 would significantly improve on the bounds the authors extracted from older experiments.
 I value the detailed response to my input! Extracting data from old experiments is tricky, but I am
 now confident that the manuscript now properly addresses this issue. My conclusion that I find the
 paper worthy of publication with Nature Communications still stands.
Peer review of: A bilateral interfacial passivation strategy promoting efficiency and stability of perovskite quantum (2020)


RR3
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors addressed my concerns. The work is suited for publication in Nature Comms.
  
 Reviewer #1 No question.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors addressed my concerns. The work is suited for publication in Nature Comms.
Agree to acceptance, No question.
Reviewer #3 No question.
Reviewer #4 No question.