JerMa88/TPR_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Peer review of: Breaking the trade-off between fast control and long lifetime of a superconducting qubit (2020)



 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  I thank the authors for their detailed response to my comments and the modification of their
 manuscript. It is now suitable for publication in Nature Communications.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have answered all my concerns. I recommend publication.
Peer review of: Transmission phase read-out of a large quantum dot in a nanowire interferometer (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  This is my second report on the manuscript "Transmission phase read-out of a large quantum dot in a
 nanowire interferometer" by Sebastian Heedt. After reading this second version, I am glad that the
 authors decided to considerably rewrite the manuscript and present a more comprehensive discussion
 about the nanowire interferometer, Fano physics, the multi-path regime, etc. Now, I think, this
 manuscript is a valuable reference stressing the difficulties towards realising more challenging
 experiments including parity read out of Majorana qubits in the mesoscopic regime. My overall
 impression is positive so I recommend this second version for publication. Before that, I only have a
 few minor points:
 1) For non-experts, it can be quite difficult to actually identify a quantum dot from the image. Here, I
 recommend to change the colour scale (actually the "pink" cross, with is the QD, is very similar to the
 colour outside). They can even try to label the QD in the image. Also, a cite to the schematics in Fig.6
 would be very helpful.
 2) In page 2, first column towards the end. When discussing the cotunneling regime, Fig2c should
 read Fig.2d.
 3) In section III Discussion, the sentence "In experiments, topologically trivial modes that extend over
 the large quantum dots and quasiparticle transport.." is probably rather obscure for non-experts. Here,
 the authors should include at least one extra sentence saying that zero modes without an underlying
 topological bulk can mimic Majoranas and hence offer parallel paths to Majorana teleportation. Here, a
 reference to the recent review (Prada et al, arXiv:1911.04512) discussing these zero modes seems
 appropriate.
 Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
To my assessment, the authors have addressed my remarks, thus I recommend publication.
 The authors have done a very substantial revision of their manuscript, which I believe has improved.
 The introduction is not aimed at a wider audience and the data analysis has been thoroughly revised.
 All the points that I have rised have been addressed in a satisfactory way so I am positive towards
 publication.
Peer review of: Unimolecularly thick monosheets of vinyl polymers fabricated in metal–organic frameworks (2020)

RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The manuscript has now reached a matureness that publication can be recommended as it stands.
  The revised version of the manuscript "Unimolecularly thick monosheets of vinyl polymers fabricated
 in metal–organic frameworks" by Uemura and coworkers addresses my final comment perfectly. In my
 opinion it can be accepted in Nat. Commun. in the present version.
  Dear Editor,
 I fully appreciate this work and it can be accepted now.
  The authors did an excellent job in addressing the concerns of the reviewers. Reviewer 3 particularly
 likes the changes regarding the structural aspects of the network reported which culminate in the new
 Supplementary Figure 6 and the additional lines 20-23 on pg. 7 in the main text. This reviewer also
 accepts the comments concerning crystal quality and NMR analysis.
 The reported science has substantial potential and is likely to give innovative, non-traditional polymer
 chemistry a strong push. Congratulations.
Peer review of: Rapid and high-resolution patterning of microstructure and composition in organic semiconducto (2020)


RR2
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 In the revised manuscript by Perevendentsev et al., the reviewers’ comments and questions have
 been clearly addressed with additional explanations and experimental data. Therefore, in my
 opinion, the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The manuscript has been improved. In particular, the schematic illustration of molecular gate
 concept is a welcome addition given that the text is not easy to follow. There is some question
 regarding the feature height:
 The size of the features is not clear from the text. The authors state “that the demonstrated
 method patterns physical and chemical material characteristics within a planar film format”.
 However, from the AFM image, it appears that the features are ~2 nm in height. This raises
 questions on the fidelity of this technique. Given the minimum feature resolution of 4 um, even
 10s to 100s of nm of feature height can form “planar films”. Higher thicknesses are speculated on
 (line 547).
 Minor issues:
 Introduction -This sentence is questionable “We hold the fact to be self-evident that the field of
 molecular, ‘plastic’ electronics and photonics is nearing its promise of delivering several classes of
 high-performance ...” – A search of the term “plastic electronics” reveals several commercially
 available products in the marketplace. Indeed, this term is nearly 40 years old. It may be
 suggested to reword this sentence to better convey the intent here.
 Along similar lines, the title “Rapid, high-resolution patterning of microstructure, composition and
 doping in organic semiconductors using ‘molecular gates’” does not seem to be grammatically
 correct – it seems to imply that the authors are patterning composition and doping. There is a
 disagreement of subject and predicate.
 The prior title - rapid, high-resolution patterning of microstructure and composition in organic
 semiconductors is less problematic.
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have addressed the reviewer’s comments satisfactorily and the revised manuscript
 and revised supplementary information are now suitable for publication in Nature Communications.
Peer review of: Quantum effect-based flexible and transparent pressure sensors with ultrahigh sensitivity and se (2020)

RR2
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors revised the manuscript based on the reviewer’s comments. It is now suitable for
 publication in Nature Communication.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have addressed all the concerns I raised, I suggest publication of the manuscript.
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have addressed all of my concerns.
 However, I still argue that the claim "implantable" is inappropriate， since the authors did not
 conduct in vivo experiments.
Peer review of: Mechano-modulatory synthetic niches for liver organoid derivation (2019)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have responded to almost all of concerns of this reviewer by performing new
 experimnets ans incorporating more experimental data. The new information significantly
 strengthens a detailed study.
  The authors have adequately addressed several of my prior technical critiques. However, I remain
 concerned about other points and the response provided to the other reviewers’ critiques raise
 significant concerns over the broad significance of the work:
 1. Results and interpretation of fibrosis-associated genes in stiffer hydrogels (Fig 4) continue to be
 problematic. It is still not clear whether these increases in gene expression have any impact
 related to fibrosis. While there are no differences in matrix production by the differentiated cells,
 the authors should explore whether secreted factors influence the fate of other cells that play
 central roles in fibrosis. Furthermore, the authors’ response to Reviewer 3 critique regarding the
 Aloia paper (comment 6) confounds interpretation of the data and weakens that authors’
 conclusions. It is not clear why the additional results (Fig D) are not included in the revised
 manuscript as these results are directly relevant to the studies performed.
 2. The results with collagen gels (Fig A) should be included as supplementary materials as these
 findings show that the response is not unique to Matrigel or PEG gels.
 3. The mechanical properties of Matrigel, measured in the same fashion as those for the PEG gels,
 should be reported and discussed in the manuscript. While the technical points raised by the
 authors are valid, their argument for not providing this information is not compelling, especially
 given the main point of the study regarding the influence of matrix mechanics on organoid
 activities.
 4. Results and discussion provided in response to Reviewer 3’s comment 3 (Fig B) should be
 included in the revised manuscript. These new results are very important and relevant in the
 context of the authors’ conclusion regarding the differentiation of the organoids into hepatocyte
 differentiation. The results in Fig B reduce the significance of the study as it shows that the
 differentiated organoids are different from primary hepatocytes.
 Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
 Thanks for the author's careful response. All the questions have been well explained.I think that
 this manuscript could be accepted now.
Peer review of: Light phase detection with on-chip petahertz electronic networks (2020)

RR2

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have addressed the comments and concerns from me and the other referee in a
 satisfactory way. I recommend the manuscript "as is" for publication in Nature Communications.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  
  The manuscript has been revised in a careful manner according to the reviewer's comments, and it
 can be now accepted for publication in Nature Communications.
Peer review of: Two-dimensional optomechanical crystal cavity with high quantum cooperativity (2020)

 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
P. Verlot
  My comments on the prior version of this manuscript, as well as comments from the other
 referees, have all been answered and the manuscript corrected where needed, to my satisfaction.
 I fully support publication in Nature Communications.
  The authors answered and added discussion in Supplementary Information satisfactory. I
 recommend publication as it is.
  I have read the rebuttal, revised manuscript and revised supplementary notes related to the
 submitted work "
 Two-Dimensional Optomechanical Crystal Cavity With High Quantum Cooperativity" from Prof.
 Oskar Painter and co-workers. I am globally satisfied by the response to my comments, and can
 therefore recommend publication without further revision.
Peer review of: Ultrathin-metal-film-based transparent electrodes with relative transmittance surpassing 100% (2020)

RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Th authors have responded to all the comments and the manuscript is now in order for publication.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have responded satisfactorily in the majority of the comments raised in the reviews. The
 modifications made in the manuscrict have increased its clarity. In view of these changes and the
 responses I can suggest the acceptance of the manuscript for publication.
    With these revisions, the message of the paper and its contributions are much clearer. In particular,
 the changes to Figures 4c and S3 are very useful to capture the improvement in transmission provided
 by the DMD architecture. I also appreciate the inclusion of the wider angle data (Figure S9) and the
 solar cell architecture (Figure S10) to evaluate the result for device applications.
 One small change to fix a plural error on line 54: "in this type of electrodes" should be either "in this
 type of electrode" or "in these types of electrodes"
Peer review of: Evidence for spin-dependent energy transport in a superconductor. (2020)

 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 Many thanks to the authors for carefully and diligently responding to my comments and the
 comments made by the other referees. I am happy with the paper, rebuttal and supplementary
 materials. This is an outstanding result in the field of superconducting spintronics and I am
 delighted to support publication in Nature Communications.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors addressed all my comments satisfactory and I recommend the manuscript for
 publication.
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have addressed the points I raised in my initial review in their reply, and clarified
 relevant issues in the revised manuscript text.
 The authors are correct that the relevant information about the f_T/f_L3 modes are explained in
 the Supplement, for expert readers interested in this question. The current manuscript text also
 now more clearly refers readers to its appropriate sections also on this topic.
 I can recommend the present version of the manuscript to be published in Nat. Comms.
Peer review of: Electric field control of radiative heat transfer in a superconducting circuit (2020)

RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
I'm happy to suggest this for publication.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
Thank you very much for the clarifications, very nice work! Maria Jose Martinez-Perez
  The authors' replies and the corresponding revisions seem satisfactory. I would recommend the
 revised manuscript for publication in its current form.
  I have read the authors' response to my initial review (as well as the others). They have written a
 thoughtful response and made adjustments to the text that address all of my comments.
Peer review of: Anharmonic quantum nuclear densities from full dimensional vibrational eigenfunctions with app (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have addressed all comments by the reviewers and improved the manuscript. I believe that the
 manuscript can now be published in Nature Communications.
  I went through the authors' response and revised manuscript. All my concerns have been properly
 addressed, and I'm now in favour of publication in the present form. I've just spotted one typo (p.19 of the
 annotated version, in Method: "excitation state"->excited state), and perhaps in the abstract "signal at
 3,551 wavenumbers" reads better as "signal at 3,551 cm^-1".
Peer review of: Direct observation of desorption of a melt of long polymer chains (2020)

 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have adequately addressed the comments of all three referees, and have revised their
 manuscript accordingly. I recommend publication in Nature Communications.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have carefully and thoughtfully addressed the concerns raised by the reviewer to highlight
 the novel characteristic of the polymer adsorption/desorption process on a solid. I am happy to
 recommend the revised manuscript for publication in the journal.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
  > The authors have amended the manuscript following most of my points, e.g., have introduced the
 instructive scheme in Fig. 1 and increased clarity of other figures. In my opinion the manuscript can
 now be published.
 > However, I have a comment regarding the data availability that you should forward to the authors:
 > It is now stated that ``On request of the readers of our manuscript, following the guidelines of the
 journal, we will be keen to provide the community with original data.' This implies that one has to
 trust the institution of the authors to guarantee long-term data storage and access. My experience
 says that, in practice, this seldomly works and public data repositories are a much better choice. I can
 not see good reasons not do do this besides that one shies away from the additional work of bringing
 the data in a format others can understand.
Peer review of: Boosting output performance of sliding mode triboelectric nanogenerator by charge space-accum  (2020)


Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 1, About Q6 and Fig. R1, the authors did not address the question raised. The authors only gave an
 explanation of the working mechanism of TENG, which is not related to Q6 in my previous comments.
 Indeed, the amount of charge in Nylon and PTFE should be the same if surface charge dissipation is
 safely ignored. However, why is the amount of charge, regardless of symbol, in Nylon and metal (left)
 the same? Based on Nano Lett. 2013, 13, 5, 2226–2233, when the polymer (Nylon and PTFE) has no
 complete overlap, there will be charge induced in the metal, which is due to the charge conservation
 in the whole system. However, what the authors showed in the manuscript, even when Nylon and
 PTFE have complete overlap, the metal has charges (leaving alone the number and symbol), which
 might violate the basic working mechanism of sliding-mode TENG. It is suggested the authors should
 justify this conclusion. Also, it is suggested the authors should calculate the electrical field drop in
 Nylon to prove that the Nylon layer did not fully screen the electrical field.
 2, Following up the above comment. The authors mentioned that the reason Nylon has surface charge
 is due to the electron transfer, which is reasonable. However, if there is no polarization in Nylon, how
 to explain that the metal can also get charged? If it is based on electrostatic induction, where does the
 induction come from if Nylon has no polarization?
 3, In Fig. R1-a and b, the authors equally ‘divide’ the charge based on the number of the metal. Does
 that mean the charge distribution in Nylon also perfectly aligns well with metal? If it is a theoretical
 statement, it is suggested the authors should provide more details on the relationship between the
 number of metals and its charge density.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors took into consideration the reviewer’s comments, they analyzed additional measurements
 and answered to the questions. They addressed most of reviewers’ comments and took them into
 account by modifying the manuscript. They nicely answered the questions by providing data, analysis
 and discussions. The manuscript has been changed and is now better and clearer. Overall I think this
 work can now be published in Nature Comm. This is why I recommend accepting this manuscript.
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have addressed all the concerns from the reviewers. I suggest the acceptance now.
Peer review of: Spatially selective manipulation of cells with single-beam acoustical tweezers (2020)


RR2
Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have clearly answered the questions I raised in my review. These were all relatively
 minor issues in the first place, but I think that the answers provide additional clarity to the paper.
 Hence, I think the authors for their detailed responses.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors provided detailed responses to most of the points raised
 There are three points that I still would like to see corrected
 1. Viability - the authors can not argue that previously cell viability has been tested for these
 frequencies and powers, and at the same time state that the major technical challenge in
 performing this work was (i) increasing the frequency by an order of magnitude and (ii)
 dramatically increasing the required acoustic power to apply significant forces (which they
 estimate as 200pN). I would ague that these are large forces to exert on a cell - perhaps a
 hundred times those exerted by optical tweezers. If the authors did not test the viability they
 should state so.
 2. Selecting a cell and manipulating it is not cell-selective manipulation. Cell selective manipulation
 is moving a cell relative to other cells, based upon a difference in its form or phenotype. The
 authors obfuscate on this and their use of the term is extremely mis-leading - especially when
 used in the title.
 3. The authors state that the novelty is their ability "to select a single cell, move it independently
 of neighboring particles and position it". Although they cite Huang extensively they do not include
 his PNAS publication which showed "3D acoustic tweezers, which can trap and manipulate single
 cells and particles along three mutually orthogonal axes of motion" using "3D acoustic tweezers to
 pick up single cells, or entire cell assemblies, and deliver them to desired locations to create 2D
 and 3D cell patterns, or print the cells into complex shapes" see Proceedings of the National
 Academy of Sciences Feb 2016, 113 (6) 1522-1527; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1524813113. The novelty
 of the work should be discussed in the context of this paper.
 Otherwise I am happy to see this published.
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have carefully examined the points raised in the comments, and have modified the
 manuscript accordingly. I suggest publishing the manuscript as is.
Peer review of: Band insulator to Mott insulator transition in 1T-TaS2 (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have carefully addressed all points raised by the reviewers; I find their responses in
 principle convincing. Following the reviewers’ request, the authors have added new photon energy-
 dependent ARPES data as well as ARPES, transport, and XRD results across 13 different samples. They
 have also extended their discussion to include structural aspects of the observed phases and the
 possible interpretation of the novel intermediate phase as a surface effect. The additions to the
 manuscript and supplementary information have improved the transparency of the analysis and the
 overall quality and consistency of the work and made it more quantitative; the added supplementary
 information has particularly increased trust in the reproducibility of the results. In my opinion, the
 quality and scientific content of the manuscript have improved to a level that justifies publication in
 Nature Communications. Yet, a careful proofreading of the manuscript and supplementary material is
 required.
 Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Luca Perfetti
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
 The authors included kz dispersion of electronic states, making their arguments more convincing. They
 have replied satisfactorily to the comments of the referees expect for one point. As stated by Referee
 1, the new phase that they observe at the surface of 1T-TaS2 bare strong resemblance to the one
 reported in 1T-TaSe2 (L. Perfetti et. al. Physical review letters 90, 166401 (2003)). In the discussion
 section, the authors should compare the I phase of 1T-TaS2 to the results published in the parent
 compound 1T-TaSe2. I would recommend publication if the authors take into account this remark.
   The authors have adequately addressed my original questions concerning the manuscript and I feel
 that the paper is now suitable for publication in Nature Communication.