JerMa88/TPR_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Peer review of: Rational design of Al2O3/2D perovskite heterostructure dielectric for high performance MoS2 pho (2020)


RR3
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have revised the manuscript appropriately and answered all questions satisfactorily.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
    The authors have addressed all my comments. I recommend the publication in Nature
 Communications in its present form.
  The authors have addressed the comments raised by reviewers carefully and adequately, and I
 recommend the publication of this paper in Nature Communcations.
Peer review of: Transparent near-infrared perovskite light-emitting diodes (2023)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author)
The authors have revised their manuscript with additional experiments that address my concerns. I'm
 happy to recommend the manuscript for acceptance in Nature Communications.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
   The manuscript in its revised version well takes into account the reviewer�s suggestions, resulting
 improved if compared to the previous submission. For these reasons it would suit the standard for
 publication on Nature Communications.
Peer review of: Fast electrical modulation of strong near-field interactions between erbium emitters and graphen  (2020)


RR2

 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the points raised in my report.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
    In the revised paper, the authors have made great efforts to answer the comments raised by the
 referees. In my opinion, my previous comments on the drawbacks of the present works have been
 considered in the revised manuscript, and the quality of the manuscript has been improved a lot.
 As a result, I recommend its publication in Nat. Commun. as it is.
Peer review of: Reconfigurable structured light generation in a multicore fibre amplifier (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
I am happy with the changes made to the manuscript and I recommend the publication of the paper. Best regards,
  My previous assessment was already favorable to accepting this paper for publication in Nature
 Communications. I now could read the other reviewer’s report and the authors’ answers and revisions and
 believe that they answered to all comments in a satisfactory way. The revised manuscript is even stronger
 than the first version and hence I confirm my recommendation of accepting the paper, as I think this work
 satisfies the criteria of importance and interest needed to be published in Nature Communications.
Peer review of: High-performance coherent optical modulators based on thin-film lithium niobate platform (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors had responded my comments carefully and satisfactorily. The manuscript can be published.
  Many thanks to the authors for their thorough response to the questions raised in my original review. I
 believe that the manuscript is now significantly improved and I would suggest acceptance for publication.
Peer review of: Tunable photo-responsive elastic metamaterials (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  Additional study made by the authors regarding the nature of the bandgap broadening sounds
 convincing. While there are still some doubts regarding the reason of observed attenuation,
 namely, it could be due to increased dissipation of the heated pillars or really to bandgap
 widening, I agree that the proposed structure serves as a tunable acoustic device. It may be used
 for manipulation with elastic waves and possesses an obvious advantage with respect to operation
 time over other existing devices. I recommend the revised manuscript for publication in Nature
 Communications. There are a few minor points for the authors’ attention:
 1. Several times in the text the concept of dissipation (absorption) and attenuation due to bandgap
 are mentioned together. It is not clear what the authors mean in each case. It would be helpful if
 the authors separate these two different physical reasons or clearly mention that the main reason
 for attenuation is unknown.
 2. In lines 258-260 a linear dependence on laser power is mentioned. I do not see where this
 linear dependence appears in Fig. 3c.
 3. I may recommend adding arrows to the lines showing the sizes of the elements of the unit cell
 in Fig 1e.
 4. In Fig. 1g the edge of the structure labeled “out” is really the input edge.
 Arkadii Krokhin
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
  The manuscript after revisions has been much more improved, and can now be published in the
 present version
Peer review of: A neurovascular high-frequency optical coherence tomography system enables in situ cerebrovas (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
  There is still one very critical question. What is the distal rotational control solution adopted in this
 study? This is the most important advance of the presented work over previous works. A detailed
 description of the distal rotational control solution should be added to the manuscript.
  The authors have significantly improved the manuscript. Changes address the primary concerns
 raised in my initial review. While better, I still encourage the authors to further adjust their
 language to accurately position this work. I believe these results are important contributions to our
 understanding of how OCT could be used to image cerebral vasculature. However, the
 instrumentation and technology that is used are engineering modifications to existing approaches.
 This is not a criticism, except that the language of the title and manuscript (see for example the
 abstract) does not accurately communication this, but instead the messaging is that this work
 describes a new imaging modality. I think this will create confusion in both the engineering and
 clinical communities, and further it is not necessary. Instead, I suggest the authors emphasize the
 results that have been achieved, rather than what I believe is misleading language that positions
 the instrument as a novel approach to intravascular imaging. See the following sentence in
 abstract as an example" "We present a novel fiber-optic imaging technology termed high-
 frequency optical coherence tomography (HF-OCT) designed to rapidly acquire volumetric
 microscopy data at a resolution approaching 10 microns in highly tortuous cerebrovascular
 anatomies." Many readers will be mislead by this sentence - the HF-OCT is not novel. It is the
 same intravascular OCT platform that has been used fro 10+ years, with some optimizations that
 enable it to be better used in specific settings.
Peer review of: Higher-order quantum spin Hall effect in a photonic crystal (2020)


RR2
Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors presented some clarifications related to the raised questions and added appropriate corrections to the
 text.
 It should be noted here that still, the authors did not present any possible results confirming the real applications
 (and advantages) of the topological system in hand, which definitely would make the paper stronger.
Peer review of: Observation of topological transport quantization by dissipation in fast Thouless pumps (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Otherwise, I believe that this very nice result is now ready for publication.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
Looks good. Thank you for addressing my comments.
  I am completely satisfied with the changes made to the manuscript. I believe that the manuscript can
 be accepted in the present form.
  I thank the authors for the detailed reply. In their reply, they leave the decision re adding a comment
 about the nonperturbative nature of the Floquet gap. I would have added a comment about it in the
 paper - otherwise, other readers would be similarly confused about this point.
Peer review of: Understanding coordination reaction for producing stable electrode with various low work functio (2020)


RR2
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The revision is good to me. it can be accepted now.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 I am satisfied by the authors' modifications to the manuscript and recommend its publication.
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have adequately addressed my initial concerns.
 I think the manuscript is now ready for publication.
Peer review of: Giant magneto-birefringence effect and tuneable colouration of 2D crystal suspensions (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  I'm satisfied with the revision of the manuscript and consider that it deserves publication in the
 present form.
  In the updated manuscript, the authors did extra experiments to further justify their claim. The
 connection between magnetism and crystal orientation are explained, and the analysis and the
 data presentation are further refined. Overall, my question and suggestion are well addressed.
 Therefore, I enthusiastically recommend the publication of this manuscript in nature
 communications.
Peer review of: An active mechanical Willis meta-layer with asymmetric polarizabilities (2020)

RR3
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  I am satisifed that all necessary changes have been made to this manuscript, and it is now
 suitable for publication.
  The authors have addressed the remaining point in the revised version. I suggest to accepted the
 manuscript for publication.
Peer review of: Attosecond electronic timing with rising edges of photocurrent pulses (2020)


RR2
Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 I thank the authors for carefully considering my comments. I am satisfied that all my concerns have
 been adequately addressed, and I support publication in Nature Communications.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 In this referee's opinion, the authors have responded excellently to the detailed suggestions by all
 three reviewers. The paper is now highly recommended for direct publication in Nature Methods.
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 I have read the revised version and find that it is now ready for being published.
Peer review of: Image polaritons in boron nitride for extreme polariton confinement with low losses (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have addressed satisfactorily my comments.
 I support the publication of this work in Nature Commun.
  My comments (as Reviewer 2) were sufficiently addressed by the authors, and I only have minor
 suggestions below. I in particular appreciate the new information added to the introduction, which
 general readership will certainly appreciate. The manuscript is ready for publication from my
 perspective. No further review is necessary from my end.
 Fig. 3b,c - now the associated discussion on how the field is confined in the gap for the symmetric
 mode is really helpful to get the authors' point, together with Fig. S3. Emphasizing "Gap" (as they
 do in Fig. 1a) in these figures might be helpful.
 pg.7, Purcell factor - in the way this is written, people would assume that the Purcell factor is
 calculated for symmetric mode. It may be good to emphasize this is calculated for the anti-
 symmetric mode.
 pg.4 - the new discussion added in response to Reviewer 3 was not very clear to me, and I don't
 know how this is helping the discussion. In particular, it is unclear how these quantitative
 difference in the dispersion leads to the advantage of hBN PhP to graphene SPP. If this is not a key
 difference (I thought that the hBN's uniqueness arises from the damping mechanism), then it may
 not be worth mentioning this here, and rather move this to SI or so. Otherwise, it is important to
 clarify why this is important.
 Also, some of the basic typos pointed out by the reviewers are not fixed yet (e.g., p.6: t12 and
 t12; some of the "n" for the refractive index is not italic). Please make sure these typos are taken
 care of before publication.
 Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The manuscript can now be accepted for publication in Nature Communications .
 I have read the authors' response to the referees: I believe the discussion of discrepancies
 between theory and experiment is suitable, and the relation to acoustic plasmons is now clear .
Peer review of: Ultrashort laser pulse doubling by metal-halide perovskite multiple quantum wells (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have addressed my comments satisfactorily. I have no further comments.
  The revised version of the manuscript has addressed the previously raised questions from all the
 reviewers. I think the observed phenomenon is very interesting and important for lead halide
 perovskite resaerch. The physical picture is also complete. This phenomenon, associated with the
 nanocavity, is able to produce the sub-picosecond laser pulses and has the potential to solve the
 problem of on-chip integrated coherent light sources. As a result, I am pleased to suggest to publish it
 on Nature Communications.
  The authors have addressed all my concerns clearly. I believe the revised manuscript is ready for
 publication.
Peer review of: Synucleinopathy alters nanoscale organization and diffusion in the brain extracellular space throu (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Minor Points
Lines 293, 494. Perhaps replace “...more thoroughly than...” with “more profoundly than does...”.
  The authors have addressed all the points I raised about the original manuscript. The paper makes
 significant new contributions to understanding the extracellular space of the brain on a nanometer
 scale and the role of hyaluronan in an important pathophysiology of the brain.
  The title is ambiguous in that “...diffusion of the brain extracellular space...” may be construed to
 mean the extracellular space is diffusing. To avoid this problem, “of” could be replaced by “in”;
 alternatively, the words “properties” or “characteristics” could be inserted after “diffusion”.
  Line 433. Today, the word “englobe” is mostly restricted to phagocytosis. Perhaps “encompass”
 would work better.
 Charles Nicholson
 Professor Emeritus
 NYU School of Medicine
 Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
 I appreciate the authors' responses to my original comments, the new data that have now been
 included and changes to the text to aid clarity and interpretation. These responses improve the
 manuscript and satisfactorily address my original criticisms.
  Soria et al, have performed the requested experiments and analysis and have addressed the
 concerns stated in the original review, except for the minor point listed below.
 3. Microglia levels appear to have been quantified by the area of Iba1 staining (Fig 4c), yet Iba1+
 soma are used for another quantification (Fig 4f). Iba1+ soma should also be analysed when the
 level/number of microglia are quantified (Fig 4c, 5j).
 We agree with the reviewer. We have now analyzed Iba1+ somas alongside all Iba1 levels. These
 results are included in Fig. 4c, 5i and Supplementary Fig. 10d.
 I can only find quantification of %Iba1 area in Supplementary Fig. 10d, not Iba1+ cell number as
 stated. This should be updated to match the quantification present in the main figures.
Peer review of: Hybrid plasmonic nano-emitters with controlled single quantum emitter positioning on the local (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  I have read the revised manuscript. The modifications suggested have been implemented. The
 introduction of the overlap figure of merit is convincing.
 Finally the authors have added new results. They have shown that this technique allows to
 fabricate a single photon source with a Purcell factor of 23. In addition, it can be controlled using
 far-field polarization.
 The second referee has indicated that this work does not introduce a novel technique to deal with
 the issue of positioning emitters close to nanostructures. In my view, the novelty is to develop a
 technique that ensures a good overlap bertween the location of the emitters and the maxima of
 the electric field. This is well characterized by the figure of merit introduced by the authors.
 Demonstrating that it can be used to fabricate a single photon emitter is a significant achievement.
 As the near-field distribution depends strongly on polarization, the result is a system that can be
 adressed selectively by controlling the exciting polarization in the far field.
 I recommend publication.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have addressed my technical concerns. My novelty concerns for the contents of the
 first version remain mostly unchanged: other methods were able to position quantum emitters
 with the same or higher accuracy than the present results. In my opinion, if the spatial overlap
 between excitation and active medium was not studied in this detail in the past it was because of
 lack of interest (incremental knowledge, no surprises in the physics, just painful to carry out the
 study with statistical significance).
 The authors have added a new section that is certainly interesting about single a quantum dot
 structure showing polarization switching. It is a valuable although preliminary addition.
 At this point, and given the subjective nature of assessments on the degree of novelty and
 significance, I believe acceptance or rejection should be an editorial decision based on the level of
 novelty expected for a Nature Communications, taking into account the added value of the new
 data with a single quantum dot but its incomplete character showing a single structure.
 ps: note that Figure 8c says “Times (s)” on the vertical axis label.
Peer review of: Kinetic prediction of reverse intersystem crossing in organic donor–acceptor molecules (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors addressed my comments in the revised manuscript satisfactorily and I therefore recommend to accept the revised manuscript for publication.
However, the authors should correct one phrase, which was added in the revision:
Page 10, line 1: “.... The possible existence of materials that may unfollow the model...”
The word “unfollow”, which is usually used in context of social media, should not be used here. Using “not follow” would be better.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
I am satisfied with the responses to the referees' comments and in my opinion this version of the manuscript can be published.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
In the present, NCOMMS-20-17872A, the authors have provided a detailed revision of the original manuscript based on three individual review reports. All points that I have stated in the first round of review have been addressed in a satisfactory fashion. I am happy to recommend acceptance of this manuscript in Nature Communication.
Peer review of: Nanoproteomics enables proteoform-resolved analysis of low-abundance proteins in human seru (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have addressed the reviewer’s comments. The reviewer recommends the acceptance of this well-revised manuscript.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have adequately addressed all the reviewers’ comments. Nitpicky detail but for completeness, they should provide experimental details for obtaining top-down tandem mass spectra (Supplementary Figure 29).
Peer review of: Engineered immunological niches to monitor disease activity and treatment efficacy in relapsing (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Minor comments:
For several citations the journal is not listed, for example:
Please update the reference list and include the journal and correct identifying information. Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have taken the advice in consideration and included additional experiments supporting
 the approach and the conclusions.
   Miller, S. D., Karpus, W. J. & Davidson, T. S. Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis in the
 Mouse. 1–26 (2010).
   The authors has mainly addressed my concerns. The quality of the paper has been improved.
 There is no any other questions.
Peer review of: Structural order in plasmonic superlattices (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The revised manuscript by Schulz has taken into consideration all the concerns raised by this reviewer.
 I think that the manuscript has been greatly improved, especially the section devoted to the optical
 characterization of the superlattices. Therefore, I support its acceptance in Nature Communications. I
 strongly encourage the authors to try to work on the scalability of the process together with a tight
 control on the number of nanoparticle layers that can be achieved.
  In their rebuttal, Schulz et al. convincingly answered all of my points. I therefore recommend the
 publication of the revised version in Nature Communications.
Peer review of: Multiscale real time and high sensitivity ion detection with complementary organic electrochemic (2020)



RR2
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 Comments
 Thank you for your responses to our comments by adding supporting data and explanation. The
 reviewer suggests that this paper would be acceptable for the publication after revision of
 followings.
 1) This reviewer still concerned about the novelty of the work. Although this work appeals sensing
 performance, complimentary OECT amplifier does not look new. Please address recent history on
 the development of OECT amplifier devices.
 2) Please check the number on the x-axis of Fig. 6d, the reviewer thinks that authors need to
 change 1 X 101 to 1 X 10-1.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have modified the paper as suggested
 I recommand the publication with this modifications
Peer review of: Spin-controlled generation of indistinguishable and distinguishable photons from silicon vacancy (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  In this revised version of the manuscript N. Morioka et al. have addressed all my questions and
 comments. I appreciate the new details about the measurements and estimation of the linewidth, and
 about HOM interference visibility. The new part about the repeatability of their measurements makes
 the paper a bit more solid, although six exemplary emitters are still not sufficient. However, I
 acknowledge that this kind of measurements are time-consuming and hard to perform on large
 ensembles.
 Therefore, the paper is now suitable for Nature Communications and I recommend publication.
 Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
 I have read the revised version of the manuscript. As stated in my earlier review, I think this work is
 of very high quality and quite significant in the field of solid state quantum information science
 community. My main concern expressed in my previous report is that the count rate of photons into
 the zero phonon line is not made very clear. The authors have addressed this to some extent in the
 current version by adding the two photon coincidence count rate in the caption of Figure 2. I don't see
 why the authors couldn't include in the main text the count rate into the ZPL and the Debye-Waller
 factor they included in their response, but I'm fairly satisfied. I'm fairly satisfied with their response to
 my other more minor points as well. I recommend publication in Nature Communications.