JerMa88/TPR_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Peer review of: Metasurface-assisted massive backscatter wireless communication with commodity Wi-Fi signals (2020)


RR2
 Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
 I find that the authors have satisfactorily taken into account my remarks. I am happy to recommend the
 paper for publication.
 Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
 I am satisfied with authors’ replies to my comment 2 and 3. However, I still think the replies to my comment
 1 and 4 may cause some misleading.
 In comment 1, I questioned the definition of “passive”. The authors give a definition fitting current work and
 introduce the application scenario of the given definition. However, the replies regarding the issue are not
 entirely convincing. What is the physical meaning of a passive system? Indeed, comment 1 from reviewer
 #1 also queries the same issue. Maybe it would be better with a reasonable explaination through rogorious
 physical model. It could be literatures or others. According to the authors' answer, it seems more accurate
 to define the device as low-power consumption rather than as passive system. I do not think it is a “static”
 system, because there are FPGA parts inside. This is the key related to the most significant conceptual
 novelty in the manuscript. I suggest the authors elaborate on this issue more carefully.
 In comment 4, I questioned the performance comparsion with previous/conventional AWC architecture.
 According to the data provided in the revision, it seems that the performance of a PWC architecture along is
 worse than that of the AWC architecture at present stage. If AWC and PWC can be overlapped/integrated in
 the same physical channel perfectly, author expected “doubled spectral efficiency”. Do this claim follow
 Shannon-Hartley theorem? Furthermore, will there be correlation or mutual coupling between the codes
 transferred through two architectures?
 Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
 in the revised version, the authors write that the difference with respect to earlier works on such systems is
 that instead of a modulated "antenna" they use a "programmable metasurface": "we propose a PWC scheme
 in which the transmitter does not include an antenna but relies on modulating the propagation environment
 with a programmable metasurface".
 But this "programmable metasurface" is, in fact, the same as tunable reflectarray ANTENNA. There is no
 difference between "programmable" and "modulated" or "tunable" or between "reflectarray" and
 "metasurface" (at least for this application). Modulating any passive reflector (using the wording in earlier
 works), one "modulates the propagation environment" (as it is now called in this paper).
 Depending on thought application, modulated and tunable reflector antennas can be weakly directed (like a
 dipole, as in the earliest works) or large-aperture, highly directed reflectarrays, as in this version.
 Unfortunately, I still do not see any fundamental, conceptual novelty in this paper, and my opinion does not
 change.
Peer review of: Metal 3D printing technology for functional integration of catalytic system (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
All reviewers' comments and suggestions have been addressed and I recommend the current version of the manuscript for publication without further modifications.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
I found the authors response satisfactory and think that the paper is now publishable in Nature Communications.
Peer review of: Atomic-scale phase separation induced clustering of solute atoms (2020)


 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have answered all open questions. I recommend this manuscript for publication.
  After addressing the raised issues,the revised manuscript has exhibited an improved quanlity now.
 Thus, I recommend the acceptance of this revised manuscript in Nat Commun.
Peer review of: Plasmon-driven synthesis of individual metal@semiconductor core@shell nanoparticles (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have addressed in detail the comments of all reviewers. While I would have liked to see additional experiments, the responses of the authors made it clear that the additional experiments might not be technically feasible with their setup and provided very detailed explanations. The work has been carried out well and has potential to become very impactful in the field. Therefore, I recommend acceptance.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have addressed all of my concerns. I can thus recommend publication in Nat.Comm.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have clearly addressed all my comments in their revised version of the manuscript, so I recommend publication of the current version of the paper.
Peer review of: A hybrid achromatic metalens (2020)



RR2 
 Reviewers' comments:
 Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
In my opinion the authors have addressed the points raised during the previous review reasonably well, and I recommend the paper for publication.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have made meaningful addition to their paper based on the suggestions I made in my previous review. I recommend publishing this paper in this journal.
Recommended minor changes:
1) If possible, could you add a schematics of the air-spaced structure. Similar to what the authors have done in Fig. 1C
2) Legends in Fig 4c-f should include EPD and NA. It makes the FWHM plot easier to understand.
Peer review of: Non-perturbative terahertz high-harmonic generation in the three-dimensional Dirac semimetal C (2020)

 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have followed all the advices of the referees and have successfully revised the
 manuscript. I have no further objections against a rapid publication.
  Reports Kovalev et al.
 Non-perturbative terahertz high-harmonic generation in the three^dimensional Dirac semimetal
 Cd3As2
 2'nd report:
 I read the response of the authors and the revised manuscript and find that it improved and
 clarifies most of the raised questions for both reviews. I confirm that the points I raised in the
 previous round have been satisfactorily addressed. I am enthusiastic by the novelty of this paper
 and I strongly recommend its publication in Nature Communications.
Peer review of: Orbital angular momentum multiplexed deterministic all-optical quantum teleportation (2020)


RR2
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The manuscript is much improved and I am happy to support publication now.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have extensively replied and answered to all my comments and questions. The paper
 has been modified accordingly. I strongly support the publication of this paper in Nature
 Communications.
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 I would like to thank the authors for their comments. I'm happy with their responses which
 clarified the questions I had on their work. The revised paper looks good to me to proceed for
 publication, and I have no further remarks apart from a minor suggestion (see below) that it's up
 to the authors to decide if they want to implement it:
 In lines 273-281 there is a revised discussion on the security analysis. There is nothing wrong with
 the revised text, but I just don't see if it's any helpful anymore. I mean that since the EPR_1 signal
 that goes to Bob is blocked but Alice still gets the EPR_2 one, it is a bit obvious that the fidelity will
 drop significantly since it's always better for Alice to mix her state with a vacuum instead of a
 thermal state if no entanglement with Bob is involved.
Peer review of: Acoustic phonon recycling for photocarrier generation in graphene-WS2 heterostructures (2020)

RR4
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
  I thank the authors for the constructive discussion throughout the review process. In view of the
 last modifications made to the manuscript and supplementary material, I support the publishing of
 this work in Nature Communications.
Peer review of: T-square resistivity without Umklapp scattering in dilute metallic Bi2O2Se (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
1. In fig.2b-e, all the data points deviate from T-square dependence at 20 or 30 K. Please fit the relationship more precisely, i.e. R∝ T2.2, and analyze to what extend will this deviation affect your conclusions.
  The authors use layered Bi2O2Se as a platform to investigate the origin of T-square resistivity in
 Fermi liquids. It seems to us that this problem is universal and sufficiently important for various
 material systems. However, there are still some issues to be addressed.
    2. Please show some details about the transport measurements. What is the device structure? How do
 you apply such a strong magnetic field?
 3. In another paper related to Bi2O2Se (Wu et al. Nano lett.2017), the authors show that positive
 pressure can lead to ferroelectricity, while your results seems to be opposite. Could you comment on
 this paper?
 4. Even if it is a guess, could you please propose a possible mechanism for T-square resistivity
 dependence of Bi2O2Se?
 Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
 In my opinion, the resubmission by Wang et al. has satisfactorily addressed all the points raised by
 the referees previously. My only complaint is that Fig. 3d is still referred to as a band dispersion,
 which is technically incorrect. I would prefer if the authors removed the clause “mimic the conducting
 band dispersion” in the figure caption. Possibly “suggestive of a conduction band dispersion” might be
 better? More egregious is the sentence in the text that states “As a consequence, the resolved
 dispersion is parabolic.” Perhaps the authors could state “As a consequence, the data appears to
 suggest a parabolic dispersion, but we note that this picture does not capture the potential undressing
 of the electrons at higher binding energies.”
 Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
 The authors have addressed all my questions exhaustively and convincingly. I recommend the
 manuscript for publication in Nature Communications.
Peer review of: Deterministic all-optical magnetization writing facilitated by non-local transfer of spin angular mo (2020)


RR2
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have addressed my comments satisfactorily and I recommend publication of the
 manuscript in its present form.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 I believe the authors have addressed adequately all comments from my side as well as from the
 other reviewers.
 While the content and main point raised by this work remain unaltered, the modifications of the
 manuscript based on the reviewers suggestions have improved considerably its quality.
 Base on the arguments already provided in my previous report, and in the view of the current
 version of the manuscript, I strongly support its publication in Nature Communications as it is.
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 I have read the revised version of the manuscript entitled "Deterministic all-optical magnetization
 writing facilitated by non-local transfer of spin angular momentum" by van Hees et al. as well as
 their response to the comments of the Referees and I would like to thank the authors for
 improving the clarity of the paper. All issues relevant for the understanding of the contents of the
 paper have been clarified in the revised version. Yet, the fundamental shortcoming of the
 manuscript is still there: it has a rather descriptive character and lack the discussion of the spin
 current dynamics (and kinetics) as well as the timescales of the magnetization dynamics in the
 switched magnetic layer. As such, the message conveyed by van Hees et al. would be a very good
 fit for a Perspective or Opinion (or similar) type of article, but not the regular scientific publication.
 Another option, in my opinion, would be to publish it in a more applied journal where it belongs.
 Therefore I would like to thank the authors for their work but cannot recommend the manuscript
 for publication in Nature Communications.