JerMa88/TPR_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Peer review of: Evidence of ubiquitous Alfvén pulses transporting energy from the photosphere to the upper chr (2019)

RR4
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have addressed most of my comments and concerns, and I am now happy recommending publication after the following minor corrections/edits:
1. In line with the authors responses and statements on lines 117-122 they should mention this limitation of their study in the abstract after the current last statement: "It should be noted that, whether this wave energy flux is actually dissipated in the chromosphere and leads to heating that balances the losses is still an open question."
2. In the Supplement line 73: "Under the small-amplitude assumption" => "Under the small- amplitude, short wavelength assumption"
Peer review of: Determining the rotation direction in pulsars (2019)

RR2
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your detailed responses to our reviewer comments. In my opinion, the manuscript is improved, and the comments have been addressed, thank you.
Very minor comments that could be addressed/clarified include:
— `typical normal' pulsars are also referred to as `slow’ or non-recycled pulsars. Perhaps the first mention of this sub-group could include one of these terms to clarify the meaning of `normal’ pulsars vs millisecond pulsars.
— Pulsar emission has been detected at low frequencies of ~10 MHz. In Figure 3, lower panel, would you expect to measure the RM=RM_ISM=5 rad/m^-2, and therefore a jump between the RMs detected, at ω<=ω_lc?
Peer review of: Strong and selective isotope effect in the vacuum ultraviolet photodissociation branching ratios o (2019)

RR2
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
I thank the authors for the additions to the text based on referee comments. I recommend the paper for publication, but I do not do so with enthusiasm, and only after several minor but important revisions are made. My lack of enthusiasm is for precisely the reason I gave in my first review: the results presented are inadequate to draw conclusions about their broader importance outside of VUV spectroscopy. They do however point out the need for more spectroscopic work.
Minor revisions needed:
1. line 50-51: the 'debate' discussed has long since been settled. Self-shielding is, without question, the source of the massive fractionation observed in the Chakraborty experiments. Can an isotopic dependence in quantum yields (long-wavelength E and C bands) affect the relative amount of fractionation for different isotopes (i.e., 17O and 18O)? Yes. Could the branching ratio mechanism presented here also affect the distribution of isotope fractionation? Yes, although only at wavelengths ~ 100 nm or less. The authors need to describe this 'debate' more clearly and with greater accuracy.
2. line 97: There have been a great many laboratory SO2 photolysis experiments performed in the C- X system (~180-220 nm). Isotopic measurements of sulfur product from these experiments have only shown clear evidence for self-shielding by 32SO2. Perhaps at shorter wavelengths the branching ratio mechanism discussed here could be important.
3. line 247: grammar - remove 'While'
4. lines 300-315: In the new text the authors need to add the important point that O(1D) production only occurs at wavelengths < 95 nm. Therefore production of 17O(1D) and 18O(1D), and a possible modification of their branching ratios relative to 16O(1D) is only possible for < 95 nm photons. That means that most of the Chakraborty O isotope results cannot be explained by the branching ratio mechanism presented here. It is possible that the 12C(1D) branch will affect 17O(3P) and 18O(3P) branching ratios, which, if so, would extend the process to ~ 100 nm photons. But this still would not account for the Chakraborty results at 105 and 107 nm (the important E1 and E0 bands). The authors must clearly state this limitation to the branching ratio mechanism for O isotopes.

5. line 320: change 'photochemical model' to 'photochemical timescale model'
6. line 347: see above about SO2
7. lines 388-389: Please describe the source and magnitude of the uncertainty in the C(3P) and C(1D) photoionization cross sections. Does the laser radiation field contribute significantly to the uncertainty on photoionization rates, or is it essentially perfectly known?
Peer review of: Evidence for low density holes in Jupiter’s ionosphere (2019)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
No further comments, I am satisfied with the authors' response and editing.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Thank you for addressing the concerns of myself and the other referees so thoroughly. The paper now clearly reports the first observations of JDPs to the community and is worthy of publication.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have addressed all my comments properly through additional analysis. I recommend it publication in its current version.
Peer review of: Sublimation of terrestrial permafrost and the implications for ice-loss processes on Mars (2021)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised in the first review. These primarily
 reflect the sensitive dependence of the conclusions on the wall temperature, which was not directly
 measured. While I would have preferred to see at least a contemporary measurement, the authors
 have at least acknowledged the sensitivity and justified their assumptions.
 I note a couple of typographical errors that crept into the changes, with the missing word marked
 by brackets:
 - "which is thought [to] be linked"
 - "conducted with glass spheres conducted at Mars [P] 41."
Peer review of: The photospheric origin of the Yonetoku relation in gamma-ray bursts (2019)


RR2 
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
I have read the authors reply and the revised manuscript. I do not have any more technical comments or suggestions. It is a sound and well-written manuscript. However, I still do not think the results are new and impactful enough to warrant publication in Nature Communications.
Peer review of: The operational environment and rotational acceleration of asteroid (101955) Bennu from OSIRIS (2022)


  RR2

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
I am satisfied the answers of the authors and I have no other remarks. The paper can be
 published in the journal.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors' corrections are sufficient for my comments.
Peer review of: A wind-albedo-wind feedback driven by landscape evolution (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
  I am satisfied with the revisions the authors have made in response to my review and I am happy
 to recommend this manuscript for publication.
  This is my second review of this manuscript. I have read through the reviewer comments and
 replies to comments by the authors, as well as the revised manuscript. 1) The authors have
 adequately dealt with my comments, and I appreciate that they considered my suggestions. 2) I
 found that the comments and revisions pertaining to the WRF model and validation to be helpful in
 providing additional context and clarity with regards to the modeling.3) Some additional references
 and text modifications clarify their use of the term "desert pavement".
 The manuscript is still clear to read and much improved. I have no additional comments or
 suggestions. It presents a compelling hypothesis tested with the WRF model that I hope the
 editors find acceptable to publish in Nature.
 Mark Sweeney
Peer review of: Groundwater level observations in 250,000 coastal US wells reveal scope of potential seawater in (2020)

RR2

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
 I feel the authors have thoroughly addressed the reviews.
 --Audrey Sawyer
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Chunhui Lu
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
 
  The authors have well addressed my comments (and the comments made by other two reviewers),
 and I am satisfied with the revision made. I think the paper could be accepted. This paper will draw
 highly attention of practitioners and researchers to coastal groundwater issues.
   The authors of this study have improved the presentation through revision, and I recommend
 publishing it in Nature Communications.
 I appreciate the authors' care in addressing questions raised by reviewers of the previous submission.
 Reading responses to other reviewer comments, beyond my own, was especially helpful. I also thank
 the authors for being so careful in presenting methodology and supporting data and plots in the
 supplement. There is also a lot of nuance added in the explanations, for example, that there can be
 SWI and SGD simultaneously, which can be confusing. The revision to language has helped to clarify
 complex issues that will be of special concern to experts, while highlighting the key results that will be
 of broad interest to Nature Communications readers.
 I have no additional comments and encourage publication of this work. best wishes, Andy Fisher
Peer review of: Were changes in stress state responsible for the 2019 Ridgecrest, California, earthquakes? (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  According to the authors, "Crustal deformation due to the July 2019 earthquake sequence in
 Ridgecrest (California) that culminated in a preceding quake of magnitude (M) 6.4 and a
 subsequent M7.1 quake caused stress perturbation in the nearby region, but it is yet uncertain
 about implication of future seismic activity. We investigated the occurrence of small earthquakes
 compared to larger ones, the b-values, and found that the rupture initiation from an area of low-b-
 values, indicative of high stress, was common to both M6.4 and M7.1 quakes. The post-M7.1-
 quake sequence revealed that another low-b-value zone, which avoided its ruptured area, fell into
 the remaining unruptured area. This shows that if a high-likelihood future rupture were to occur,
 this might influence the nearby Garlock fault that hosted large earthquakes for several thousand
 years."
 This is a very good paper that outlines the science of b-value mapping, and provides a nice
 summary of the method. Applying it to the region of the Ridgecrest earthquake, they find that the
 Garlock fault may be at risk of rupture due to the existence of a low b-value region. And while the
 estimate of risk is not quantitative, in the sense of a probability computation, the results are
 nonetheless interesting and worthy of publication.
 I would urge the authors to consider how one might compute a probability of future large
 earthquake in the region, or perhaps apply some type of nowcasting method to evaluate present
 level of risk. Aside from that comment, I think the paper can be published substantially as is.
 Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The author has addressed my concerns appropriately.
Peer review of: Dissociation of salts in water under pressure (2020)


RR2

 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
I am now happy with all the revisions the Authors have made and recommend for publication.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
    The authors addressed all the comments in my report satisfactorily. I recommend acceptance of
 the manuscript.
  This paper using ab initio MD to explore the nature of NaCl solutions under the conditions of the
 upper mantle. One of the fundamental questions about such solutions is whether Na and Cl ions
 have increased association because of the decreasing dielectric constant of water at high P,T. The
 primary result of this paper is that, at upper mantle PT conditions, the free energy barrier between
 solvent-separated ion pairs (Na-H2O-Cl) and contact ion pairs (NaCl) increases. Two of the
 reviewers suggested that this result is not significant enough to warrant publication in Nature. In
 response to this point, the authors suggest that the increasing barrier between the two modes of
 ion association would affect the kinetics of rock-water reactions (e.g., serpentinisation). However,
 this is not a valid argument: the free barrier between contact vs. solvent-separated ion pairs
 would not at all define the rate-limiting step in the kinetics of any rock-water reaction. As it is, the
 increasing free energy barrier between contact and solvent-separated ion pairs does not have any
 obvious geochemical or geophysical significance.
 In summary, I would still conclude that, although the paper is scientifically and technically sound,
 the results are not of significance to warrant publication in Nature. However, that is an editorial
 decision and, perhaps the paper must be put into the context of what else has been currently
 submitted to the journal.
Peer review of: The influence of the brittle-ductile transition zone on aftershock and foreshock occurrence (2020)

RR2
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 review of Ms: NCOMMS-20-01427A
 I am very ok the way my previous comments and suggestions are being integrated into
 the revised version of the manuscript.
 I recommend the manuscript to be accepted for Nature-communication publication
 some minor points to possibly be clarified are listed below
- figure 1: "The fault plane H is subject to velocity weakening friction ⌧h"
i failed to catch the “H label” for the fault plane on figure 1 plot ? at any rate, the fault plane label as grey letters is not clear on this figure. Please clarify
 -p10 bottom: "the BTW model does not have parameters..."
 this sentence is awkward. Connectivity and distribution rules are not they equivalent to model
 input parameters ? please clarify
 -p10 bottom: "...size of earthquakes (BTW model) is power law distributed".
 Is not the BTW exponent of power law far away from the earthquake one ? please clarify
 - p12 top: "better reproduced by by class III models"
 typo “by by”....
    figure 1: "d) As in panel (c) for the whole fault plane."
 is it to say that during the 5 time steps no event occurs elsewhere on the fault plane except the
 ones in the pink dotted box? are not the others 4 sequences somewhere on this fault plane ? or
 does the (d) figure correspond to the fault plane activity only during a time window that overlaps
 with the “second” sequence, solely ? Please clarify
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The points have been addressed convincingly by the Authors and I recommend publication of the
 new version, which is also clearer than the first submission.
Peer review of: 3D sedimentary architecture showing the inception of an Ice Age (2020)



RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  I thank the authors for careful attention to my remarks. The sections on chronology and the
 terminolgy changes are fine, given the constraints of available data. The paper is now significantly
 improved , and I am happy to recommend it for publication.
Peer review of: The Red Sea Deep Water is a potent source of atmospheric ethane and propane (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Comment on revised version of NCOMMS-19-32149A
I suggest to accept the revised manuscript for publication. See minor correction below:
   All comments and questions are considered in the revised version of the manuscript and changes
 made improved clarity and plausibility of the message. The new title „Red Sea Deep Water - a potent
 natural source of atmospheric ethane and propane” is appropriate and reflects the slightly changed
 focus, concerning different subsea hydrocarbon sources.
  L146 change to: ...from hydrocarbon reservoirs deposited above offshore source
 rocks...(e.g....Kareem)...
 I enjoyed reading this contribution,
 Mark Schmidt

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have addressed my suggestions for improving the manuscript. I recommend publication.
Peer review of: Stable isotopes show that earthquakes enhance permeability and release water from mountains (2020)

RR3
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Line 260 - it would be clearer if you say "lowered water levels due to the contribution"....
  Thanks for addressing my previous comments. Just a couple of minor edits that I can see to help
 clarify the message.
  Line 285, I would prefer that you are clear this is still a hypothesis. Perhaps add in a couple of
 words such as "after the main shock, hypothesised to be because of persistent permeability
 increase".....?
Peer review of: Influence of tectonics on global scale distribution of geological methane emissions (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The revisions have helped to clarify and strengthen the claims of this study further and I now
 consider that it deserves to be published in Nature Communications. Most of my concerns have
 been allayed. By adding further clarification in the supplementary the limits of the study are
 clearer.
Peer review of: Drought and climate change impacts on cooling water shortages and electricity prices in Great Bri (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): The authors have addressed all comments.
   Minor comments that do not need be re-reviewed:
 - the title should mention that the study is for the Great Britain. Many countries have a very different
 seasonal electricity demand pattern which would accentuate the findings in this study.
 - the abstract mentions "atmospheric drought, river flows". Since the analysis is about low flows, it
 corresponds to "hydrologic droughts" only.
 - use of "UK" and "Britain" throughout the paper might need to be consistent and associated with the
 geographic area actually covered.
 Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
 Considering that my suggestions were fully accepted, I understand that my contributions are closed.
 My recommendation - acceptance of the article
Peer review of: Slip bursts during coalescence of slow slip events in Cascadia (2021)


RR2

 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have done a good job of responding to the reviewer comments. In my opinion, the
 manuscript is ready for publication.
  According to the comments, the authors properly revised the manuscript including the
 supplementary file. Although the manuscript is almost close to the publication, several minor
 revisions as follow are still needed.
 Abstract:
 �the view proposed by theoretical studies (4�6)�
 ->
 �the view proposed by theoretical and experimental studies (4�6)�
 The title of Supplementary Materials is different from that in the main manuscript. The authors
 changed the title in the revised manuscript but forgot to change it in the supplement.
 Figure S1: The authors selected 10 sites away from the merging area in order to assess the level
 of noise in the edge filter analysis (red triangles). How did you select these red sites? There are
 jumping of selections, not selected in an area as like blue sites. At least, it is required to explain
 the reason.
 Figure S21: The recovered slip rate is shown by a thick dashed line. But the broken line spacing is
 too coarse to see the precise temporal change in the slip rate. You need the modification.
Peer review of: Oceanic crust recycling controlled by weakening at slab edges (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Filipe M. Rosas
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  I find the reply to my previous comments perfectly satisfactory. In my view the paper, which I
 already considered a very interesting contribution, has now improved even further and fully
 deserves being published in Nature Communications.
   The authors have responded to, and modified the manuscript, my comments on the previous
 version. The manuscript is a balanced representation of the numerical results, and of their
 implications with one exception; technically they do not use a free subduction approach, but the
 overriding plate is unrealistically thin and this aspect is not very explicit in the revised manuscript.
Peer review of: A direct coupled electrochemical system for capture and conversion of CO2 from oceanwater (2020)

RR2

Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have sufficiently addressed my technical and novelty concerns for the article through their
 revisions, and I find this work to be publishable in Nature Communications in its current form.
 The work covers a relatively large proof-of-concept merging of two technologies at a lower technology
 readiness level, as well as provides a well thought out technoeconomic analysis for a technical paper.
 The work provides a broad overview noting the opportunities and limitations of such a combined
 system that will provide a good foundation for future work aimed at determining the final industrial
 viability of such an approach compared to other technologies.
Peer review of: Identifying domains of applicability of machine learning models for materials science (2019)


RR2

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Thank you for the updates to the manuscript.
I am supportive of publication with minor changes noted below
    * The statement "the relative error is guaranteed to be uncorrelated with the target values" would
 only be true under some additional about the origin of the errors. I do not see why this would be
 guaranteed for this data with these models. You should either justify this statement of soften it.
 * I will note: it is still not clear to me whether relative or absolute error is preferred for finding a DA.
 However, with the addition of the figures in supplemental for DAs from absolute errors (Fig 4, Table
 III and IV), this is something the reader can investigate for themselves.
 * Nit: The caption in Figure 4 refers to something that does not exist in the figure: "number of sample
 in the entire test set are also indicated"
 Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The revised version of the paper looks good. I have no extra comments on the paper.
Peer review of: Endogenous retroviruses are a source of enhancers with oncogenic potential in acute myeloid leu (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Overall the manuscript is now improved. Although the authors did not respond to several of my comments with new experiments, they did provide reasonable explanations since these experiments would be very extensive. I also appreciate the new title as well as the responses to the other reviewers. In my opinion, this is now an excellent manuscript suitable for publication in Nature Communications.
Johan Jakobsson
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have answered all my comments and concerns. It is a very interesting and well done study and I have no further concerns.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have addressed my concerns and I am satisfied by their responses.
Peer review of: Photocathode functionalized with a molecular cobalt catalyst for selective carbon dioxide reduction (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
  From their response to the comments, I can see that our concerns have been dealt very well. The
 work has been improved lot. So it can be published as it is now.
  The authors adequately answered comments. The edits to the manuscript help clarify the discussion
 and remove ambiguity.