JerMa88/TPR_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Peer review of: Birds repurpose the role of drag and lift to take off and land (2019)



Reviewers' Comments:  
 
Reviewer #1:  
Remarks to the Author:  
The changes to the manuscript are appropriate – in particular, the clarifications regarding the 
decomposition of lift and drag, and the treatment of inertial power. There’s a lot going on here, and 
the more plainly you can describe it (e.g., your simple summary of the study’s novelty), the better.  
Very nice work –
Peer review of: Behavioural correlations of the domestication syndrome are decoupled in modern dog (2019)


Reviewers' Comments:  
 
Reviewer #1:  
Remarks to the Author:  
My concerns have been adequately addressed. Thank you for the stimulating discussion.  
 
 
 
Reviewer #2:  
Remarks to the Author:  
The authors have done an appropriate job revising their manuscript in response to my final comments. 
I have no further comments.
Peer review of: Vocal state change through laryngeal development (2019)



Reviewers' Comments:  
 
Reviewer #1:  
Remarks to the Author:  
In the revised manuscript, Zhang and colleagues carefully addressed all my concerns. I am positive 
that the findings will be appreciated by a broad audience. Hereby, I recommend this manuscript to be 
accepted for publication in Nature Communications.  
 
 
 
Reviewer #3:  
Remarks to the Author:  
I thank the authors for their efforts in addressing all my comments arising from the earlier 
submission. They have made the manuscript significantly clearer, and it is all but ready for 
publication.  
 
A couple of minor points:  
1) The authors' point about the cry to phee transition being a special case because of the tonality, 
loudness, and length is well-taken. I appreciate the discussion section on the other vocalizations. But I 
would recommend that they make this point clearer in the Abstract and Introduction which still leads 
the reader to believe that this applies to all sounds.  
 
I suggest editing line 25 "Here we show that vocal state changes in infant marmoset monkeys..." to 
"Here we show that vocal state changes in marmoset monkey contact calls, which transition from 
noisy cries in infants to tonal calls in adults,..."  
 
line 63 "Over the course of approximately two months..." to "Over the course of approximately two 
months, infants exhibit changes in the acoustic properties of cry calls, that reflect a transition from 
producing mostly immature versions of the contact call (i.e., cries) to ..."  
 
2. In Fig. 2d, the authors report a sharp transition in the f0 from ~2 to ~9 kHz at 15% strain. But in 
the example in 2e as well as population data in 2f, the 2 to 9 KHz occurs over a much expanded strain 
range (strain 0.2 to ~0.45). Please clarify or use more representative example.
Peer review of: The varied sources of faculae-forming brines in Ceres’ Occator crater emplaced via hydrothermal (2020)



Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
I enjoyed reading this revised manuscript, which is much improved. I find that the authors have addressed most of my previous comments, except one. Please see the annotated manuscript where I have commented on the use of the term "melt chamber". As noted, I find this term incorrect, or at best confusing, and would encourage the authors to describe this zone more like the Bowling et al. paper did, as a reservoir of volatiles, but which also contains solid material.

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
I am very happy with the revisions made in response to my and the other reviewers' comments. The manuscript is in good shape in every regard. Just a minor formatting thing, on lines 237-238 of the integrated manuscript, the exponents 3 (two mentions) are in very small font size.
The figures are spectacular, and I definitely enjoyed the higher resolution figures. Ambiguities about impact vs endogenic craters are still there, but I am satisfied that the authors have done their level best to discriminate the two types of craters or depressions; and furthermore, the authors acknowledge this ambiguity or possibility of misidentification.
I am happy with the paper as is and I recommend acceptance.

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
Dear Authors,
Thank you for addressing my comments and suggestions. I'm happy with the changes made and the revised version of the manuscript. Below I've included the references that you requested regarding compression and material strength of ice:
Gold, L.W., 1977. Engineering properties of freshwater ice. Journal of Glaciology, 19, 197-212.
Hobbs, P.V., 1974. Ice Physics. Oxford University Press, London.
Haynes, F.D., 1978. Effect of Temperature on the Strength of Snow-Ice, CRREL Report 78-27. U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, N.H.
Chloe Beddingfield
Peer review of: Design and flight results of the VHF/UHF communication system of Longjiang lunar microsatellites (2020)


 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
On the reviewer�s opinion, the paper can now be accepted in its present form.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The updates and answers provided were concise and all made sense.
    
Dear Referees,
Response to Referees
Thank you again for your review for our manuscript "Design and Flight Results of the VHF/UHF Communication System of Longjiang Lunar Microsatellites".
In this letter, we provide a point-by-point response to your comments. All the changes in the main text were made using the "track changes" feature. We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript.
31st May 2020
 Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
On the reviewer�s opinion, the paper can now be accepted in its present form.
 Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The updates and answers provided were concise and all made sense.
Thank you very much for your positive feedback. We made no modification to the paper for these comments.
Peer review of: Design and flight results of the VHF/UHF communication system of Longjiang lunar microsatellites (2020)


 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
On the reviewer�s opinion, the paper can now be accepted in its present form.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The updates and answers provided were concise and all made sense.
Peer review of: The root of anomalously specular reflections from solid surfaces on Saturn’s moon Titan (2020)

(RR3)
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):

I found the manuscript ready to be accepted. T
his is a nice paper.
The Authors really made a great job!

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
I appreciate the authors taking the time to address all of the reviewer suggestions. The manuscript has significantly improved and I recommend it for publication.
Peer review of: Mineral dust increases the habitability of terrestrial planets but confounds biomarker detection (2020)

(RR2)   
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  I am completely satisfied with the authors responses to my original referee report. There is no further need for revisions from my point of view.

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  *** « We have investigated the sensitivity of our results to various parameters within the scheme as suggested, and now include a discussion of these sensitivities in the main text (L140-146) and supplementary material (L14-22).....»
 → Why did you choose to vary a 'key tuning parameter' by 10% only? And not 50%? 90%? Also,
 what is this 'key tuning parameter'?
 → Can you explicitly state in the Supplementary Materials which sensitivity tests (i.e. which
 parameters have been changed, and by how much) have been carried out? I suggest to add a
 table summarizing the sensitivity experiments, as well as to add a Figure (e.g. Fig.1 in your
 rebuttal) showing explicitly the results of these experiments.

 Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
 I thank the authors for answering my queries. We would like to request the authors to make an
 explicit clarification, in both the title and the manuscript, of photochemical haze and the mineral
 dust they are studying.
 I have no further comments.
Peer review of: Collisional formation of top-shaped asteroids and implications for the origins of Ryugu and Bennu (2020)

(RR2)
  
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Dear Editor,
I have read the new version of the manuscript NCOMMS-19-3995858A by P. Michel et al. I think the authors did a very good job and provided detailed answers, and updated accordingly the manuscript. I think the paper is much clearer now, in particular the have disambiguated "prolate" and "top- shape" meanings. Also they have redone some figures following my comments. In this conditions , in my opinion, this paper is suitable for publication.
Best regards Sebastien Charnoz
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
This reviewer thanks the authors for their reply and detailed explanation to the requested revision. Mostoftheirargumentsareatleastasvalidastheconcernsraisedinformerreview.Inthissense, even if not all authors explanations are fully convincing, they look reasonable enough to support most of their conclusions and to be published.
Still, one issue deserves attention and requires further comment in the manuscript. Simulations show multiple rubble-pile formation as collections of several tens of equal size spheres into somewhat oblate shapes. This reviewer wonders: (1) Does considering SPH fragments as all equal size (and mass?) affect the final shape of the rubble-piles? (2) How does the assumption of having spherical ragments affect the final shape of such rubble-piles?
Ferrari et al. (MNRAS, 2020) and Campo Bagatin et al. (Icarus, 2020) have recently shown (right after the authors' manuscript submission) that gravitational collapse of non-spherical fragments influence the way gravitational collapse takes place and may explain most asteroids shapes.
This reviewer believes that -in order for the manuscript to be fully acceptable- it is necessary to fairly warn the reader on this issue. Therefore it is necessary to honestly state the oversimplification of the authors' re-accretion model making reference to the mentioned papers.
Peer review of: Gravitational-wave asteroseismology with fundamental modes from compact binary inspirals (2020)

RR2
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have carried out a thorough analysis in response to my concerns and dealt with the issues I had raised. I therefore recommend publication of this manuscript.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
Dear Editor, dear Authors,
I have read the answers to my questions and I am happy with them.
I have only a couple of additional minor points (related with the new text) that I would like the authors to clarify:
1) in the final paragraph of the Discussion, the Authors say:
"...whereas the post-merger phase probes the hot EoS at relatively larger NS masses".
I am a bit confuse by "at relatively larger NS masses". The NS masses are an intrinsic property of the binary. The post merger will probe higher **densities** which, in turn, are possibly verified also in isolated or inspiring more massive NSs (this is even more relevant nowadays, after e.g. GW190425). However, depending on the EOS, the post-merger can probe even larger densities (see for example figures from the recent analysis of Perego,Bernuzzi & Radice EPJA 2019). Maybe replacing "at relatively larger NS masses" with "at densities several times larger than the nuclear saturation density" can remove the ambiguity.
2) A few lines after, "this would enable us to probe the pressure of matter at 1-2 times the nuclear saturation density [42],...". I would have naively expected the relevant density range to be 2-5 times the nuclear saturation density, which are the central densities of cold, merging NS. I don't know if the f-mode are more sensitive to the lower part of the EoS, but that part is already well constraints by other nuclear measurements and by chiral-EFT. So, I think the more relevant constraints that GW astroseismology can provide are possibly more relevant at larger densities. Could the Authors please double check this point?

Moreover, the Science article of Lattimer and Prakash 2004 is certainly very relevant and a good reference, but honestly a bit outdated. What about replacing it with something more recent? For example, there is the more recent review, again from Lattimer 2012 (DOI: 10.1146/annurev-nucl- 102711-095018). It is still from the pre-GW era, but at least the maximum NS mass is better taken into account and the focus on the EoS is clearer.
Peer review of: Effect of sulfur on sound velocity of liquid iron under Martian core conditions (2020)

RR2
Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 In my view, the authors have adequately answered all issues I raised in my previous review. The
 manuscript may be published as is now.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 I find the revised version largely improved and the responses on my comments almost satisfying. I
 can recommend the paper to be published in Nature communications, but after some minor
 revisions.
 The authors decided not to give any uncertainties of the fitting EoS parameters for Fe-S liquids.
 However, it should not be acceptable. When fitting a model function to experimental data, one
 should give a static error on the fitted parameter. The static error represents the deviation or
 statistical dispersion of the present data set from the fitting. So, it does not depend on the
 accuracy of the fitted value. I can expect the errors in the present fitting can be reasonable, when
 taking a look at fitting results in Figures. However, the authors should give the the values for
 easily evaluating the quality of the data-sets and fittings.
 The description (lines 244-246) on the choice of rho 0 for liquid Fe80S20 is hardly followed. The
 authors describe that the rho0 value of 6.2 g/cc is taken from Huang et al. (2018), however, the
 rho0 is 6.5 g/cc in Table S1 of the reference paper. From Fig. R1, I guess the authors adjusted the
 rho0 values so as to explain the shock compression density data with the present EoS (for liquid
 Fe57S43, may be based on Shaner et al.’ data). Please describe clearly how to choose the rho 0
 values.
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The revised manuscript has fully addressed the previous comments. I have no further comments
 and would like to recommend this manuscript for publication in Nature Communications.
Peer review of: Near-infrared observations of active asteroid (3200) Phaethon reveal no evidence for hydration (2020)

RR2

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
I have read the revised version of this manuscript and all the requested changes have been done. The authors also did reply to all the raised questions and addressed all the specific issues highlighted by this reviewer. In my opinion, the paper is ready so I recommend it for publication.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors revised the paper taking into account all my suggestions. I have read it and now in my opinion it is ready for publication.
Peer review of: Ultraviolet photolysis of H2S and its implications for SH radical production in the interstellar medi (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors’ response to my query regarding the branching ratio for dissociation in the region below the first ionization limit satisfies this issue. They now state the rationale for assuming 100% dissociation, and it is convincing. I also find their responses to the other two referees’ questions to be thorough and convincing. I continue to recommend publication.

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
I have nothing to add, the authors have answered most of the points underlined and the manuscript can be published as it is.
Peer review of: Iron whiskers on asteroid Itokawa indicate sulfide destruction by space weathering (2020)

RR2

 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The revised manuscript largely addresses the concerns about alternate mechanisms for whisker
 growth. This statement is highly inaccurate "Itokawa’s young formation age of ~1.3-2.3 Ga28–30
 excludes the solar nebular gas as a vapour source." The papers referenced in 28-30 refer to
 impact heating ages. Itokawa is composed of LL5 chondrite-like material. The mineral formation
 ages of these meteorites are >4.56 Ga, so formation in the solar nebula cannot be ruled out with
 this argument. Other that this concern, the authors have done a good job reviewing other whisker
 growth in ET materials and providing convincing support for their preferred origin.
 Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #5 (Remarks to the Author):
 The authors are to be commended for a thorough revision of the paper in response to the reviews.
 I agree with both the thrust of the initial reviews - that a broader discussion of the implications of
 this work for space weathering on airless bodies is needed - and the reviewers response to those.
 In particular, the authors make a compelling case that the iron whiskers are, in fact, related to the
 sulfides on which they are deposited and not vapor deposition. The authors are to be
 congratulated for the effort in review.
  In the abstract, I found that the positioning of the study is a bit confusing. The sulfur depletion on
 asteroids is positioned, with a consequence on S delivery on Earth. The process that is described
 here does not affect the overall balance of sulfur that is delivered to Earth, at least if the delivery
 was provided by asteroids. The modification only affects the extreme surface and do not modify
 the overall partitioning of S in the interplanetary space if big object are involved (like asteroid) –
 See also lines 64-65, and lines 231- 233.
 Line 37 : it is said about the S depletion on EROS « : the depletion mechanism is however yet not
 understood”. I do not think it is correct because an explanation is given Loeffer et al. 2008 (ref
 47). Their conclusion is that the low abundance of sulfur is caused by space weathering.
 Lines 159-174, about the role of solar heating. Based on the study of space weathered silicates on
 Itokawa, some authors claimed that it is possible that Itokawa had experienced subsolar
 temperatures on the order of 650 to 700 K (Harries et al. 2014, ref 15). It is much more than the
 400 K mentioned here. Maybe the possibility of high T exposure for Itokawa can be discussed here
 because it could explain well the kinetics of the decomposition and the atomic mobility required for
 the whisker growth.
Peer review of: Evolving parsec-scale radio structure in the most distant blazar known (2020)

RR3
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
I find that the revision resolved and clarified some issues. The authors seem to properly interpret the proper motion and polarization measurements for this highest-z blazar as due to nascent jets interacting with dense ambient medium, and present their results and arguments clearly.
These are certainly worth a publication. However, unknown uncertainties in the measurements, the previous models used for interpolating their results, and the inferred physical properties weaken the arguments of the authors. Furthermore, there are possibilities of alternative scenarios, and therefore I am not convinced that the results significantly influence my thoughts on SMBHs and their evolution in the early Universe. The results help to strengthen previous arguments on the subject and so I think that the paper fits into another journal better.
Peer review of: Longitudinal ridges imparted by high-speed granular flow mechanisms in martian landslides (2019)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
H. J. Melosh
Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have done a commendable job of responding to my and the other referees'
 comments. The revised paper is a substantial improvement over the original and I now support
 publication of the revised MS as it stands.
   The authors have answered to my comments and have modified the manuscript. I think the paper
 is stimulating both geomorphology and physics community and I recommend the paper for
 publication in nature Communication.
Peer review of: Origin of two-band chorus in the radiation belt of Earth (2021)

RR2

Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The reviewer thinks that the authors have considerably improved the manuscript, and the reviewer
 now believes that the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 Reviewer appreciates that authors have carefully addressed the points raised in the review.
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 I don’t think that the answers of the authors have convinced me. I reiterate my two serious
 points.
 1. Obviously, the simulations concern the excitation of whistler waves, which is in the source
 region of whistler waves. However, I wonder whether the observations are in the source region of
 whistler waves. If the observations are not in the source region of whistler waves. Then, the
 authors cannot compare the simulations with the observation. If the authors want to convince the
 readers that their observations are in the source region of whistler waves, they should give the
 directions of Poynting fluxes of the whistler waves. If the whistler waves are in their source region,
 the Poynting vectors should have components both parallel and anti-parallel to the magnetic field.
 2. The authors also cannot convince me that the low-band and high-band whistler waves are
 excited by two separate electrons components with temperature anisotropy. During the relaxation
 of the temperature anisotropy, the frequencies will also drift to lower value. I think that the
 authors should run another case, and the whistler waves propagate along the magnetic field. If the
 spectra of the whistler waves are similar to that of oblique whistler waves, except without a gap
 around 0.5 , then the low-band whistler waves should be the results from a quasi-linear process
 during the relaxation of the temperature anisotropy, not excited by another component with a
 temperature anisotropy.
Peer review of: Nucleobase synthesis in interstellar ices (2019)

RR3

REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
I appreciate the clarification in the text that the validation was not done for the sugar-related compounds, but find the new text to be somewhat confusing:
“For comprehensive and quantitative evaluation between nitrogen containing molecules and sugar molecules, we analysed the organic residues without the isolation procedure by the cation-exchange chromatography for sugar-related compounds (cf. Method section for amide, amino, imino, and N- heterocyclic species).”
1) If the validation was not done for the sugar-related compounds, you should not state that the sugar molecules have undergone a comprehensive and quantitative evaluation.
2) This is the first time mentioning “the isolation procedure,” instead perhaps call it just a cation-exchange chromatography purification procedure to match the terms used earlier in the text
3) The sentence is somewhat unclear overall. Perhaps reword the whole text to something like:
“For sugar molecules, we analyzed the organic residues without the cation-exchange chromatography purification procedure (cf. Method section for amide, amino, imino, and N- heterocyclic species).”
After this sentence is fixed, I have no further need to review the manuscript.
A final note of clarification that may be of future use to the authors regarding the recovery plot that was shown to maintain 90% recovery at very low concentrations:
Recovery efficiency can drop sharply and unexpectedly at low concentrations, and a perfectly linear extrapolation usually cannot be assumed. Often, these recoveries depend on the exact interactions of molecular groups, and therefore will also vary greatly from compound to compound (and therefore multiple plots may be needed).