Influence of Extragalactic Magnetic Fields on Extragalactic Cascade Gamma-Ray Emission
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comment
This paper shows a result of a quick calculation of cosmic-ray acceleration. Although the motivation is interesting I found it doubtful that this one-figure-only result can be published as a paper. I would at least like to see the inference of the result. It is nice to explain why the 1e-6B curve is “softer” than 1e-12B curve and why they cross at 1e8eV.
The structure of the end part of Section 1 and whole Section 2 does not look like a paper. Please rewrite them.
Rewrite 107 and 109 eV in the abstract.
Author Response
General Comment
This paper shows a result of a quick calculation of cosmic-ray acceleration. Although the motivation is interesting I found it doubtful that this one-figure-only result can be published as a paper. I would at least like to see the inference of the result. It is nice to explain why the 1e-6B curve is “softer” than 1e-12B curve and why they cross at 1e8eV.
My response:
Fig. 2 is added.
It is explained.
The structure of the end part of Section 1 and whole Section 2 does not look like a paper. Please rewrite them.
My response:
They are rewritten.
The rewritten text is typed in dark red color.
I thank the referee for remarks and discussion of the text.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Editor, thank you for entrusting me with the manuscript « Influence of extragalactic magnetic fields on extragalactic cascade gamma-ray emission .»
Although I recognize interesting messages in the paper, I found that in many places, it could be improved, and I, therefore, recommend major revisions before it can be considered for publication.
Some sentences seem almost juxtaposed in many places, and I think overall polishing would greatly help.
Abstract :
- L. 15 typo 107-109
- Message : it’s hard to understand the context of this paper. Is it a review? New work? Proceeding. It should be easier for the reader to understand
l.33 « The value of EGMF that weakly violate cascade development is estimated in [7]. Ok, but why not cite a value here? This could add precious information for the reader.
l.37 EGMF deflect CRs, also it is the cause = « and is also causing the broadening .. » . I fail to understand the logic here? Where are you going with this?
l. 42 « searching dark matter particles, as in the latter the contribution of various components to the extragalactic magnetic field should be known .» Why? It looks like you are writing, « it is important to know the magnetic field because the magnetic field is important .» Why is it essential that the reader who does not know will not understand? + add at least one citation, please!
From L.39 -l.54, 5 sentences go to the line, the paragraph is hard to read, and I don’t understand the logic and the message. 
What is the goal of the paper? What are you showing?
Again, I have no doubt about the genuine expertise of the authors, but I am having a hard time understanding the paper’s goal, and I suspect other readers might too.
Method :
l. 56: you mention the model you are using. But could you clearly state what you are modeling and why? In one sentence, then present the model as you do.
I believe L. 55- l.80 -> eight paragraphs is too much. Also, it gives again the impression that it is a collection of sentences
Conclusions
l. 102 « Yet the knowledge of this effect can be relevant to the search of dark matter particles, where the contribution of various components to the extragalactic background emission should be known .» Why? Why is it essential for dark matter? It is honestly not clear to me, and it might be the chance to explain in a few words to the reader!
Author Response
Responses to the comments by Reviewer 2
Abstract :
- L. 15 typo 107-109
- Message : it’s hard to understand the context of this paper. Is it a review? New work? Proceeding. It should be easier for the reader to understand
Abstract is rewritten.
l.33 « The value of EGMF that weakly violate cascade development is estimated in [7]. Ok, but why not cite a value here? This could add precious information for the reader.
It is added.
l.37 EGMF deflect CRs, also it is the cause = « and is also causing the broadening .. » . I fail to understand the logic here? Where are you going with this?
This is rewritten.
42 « searching dark matter particles, as in the latter the contribution of various components to the extragalactic magnetic field should be known .» Why? It looks like you are writing, « it is important to know the magnetic field because the magnetic field is important .» Why is it essential that the reader who does not know will not understand? + add at least one citation, please!
I do not understand this remark. The text is:
“Study of the cascade gamma-ray emission intensity is important revealing UHECR sources, UHECR composition, extragalactic space characteristics, and searching dark matter particles, as in the latter the contribution of various components to the extragalactic background emission should be known”.
Nevertheless in the revised version I discuss searching dark matter particles and add ref. [9].
From L.39 -l.54, 5 sentences go to the line, the paragraph is hard to read, and I don’t understand the logic and the message. What is the goal of the paper? What are you showing?
Again, I have no doubt about the genuine expertise of the authors, but I am having a hard time understanding the paper’s goal, and I suspect other readers might too.
“Introduction” is rewritten, in the revised version there are 11 paragraphs in “Introduction”, instead of 8 ones.
Method :
l. 56: you mention the model you are using. But could you clearly state what you are modeling and why? In one sentence, then present the model as you do.
I believe L. 55- l.80 -> eight paragraphs is too much. Also, it gives again the impression that it is a collection of sentences
This section is rewritten.
Conclusions
l. 102 « Yet the knowledge of this effect can be relevant to the search of dark matter particles, where the contribution of various components to the extragalactic background emission should be known .» Why? Why is it essential for dark matter? It is honestly not clear to me, and it might be the chance to explain in a few words to the reader!
It is added.
The rewritten text is typed in red color.
I thank the referee for remarks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
General Comment
I would like to thank the author for an additional work to improve the paper. Although the intensive work by the author, the explanations of the spectra difference and the crossing point are no very easy to understand. I would like to ask for some rewriting of these parts.
*structure and logis
- Please check the flow of the whole paper and reorder it, if necessary.
- The structure of the first part in Section 2 still does not read like a paper. Please think of the flow and make paragraphs with more sentences (not one or two sentences in one paragraph).
* language
- Please ask any English proofreading service to improve the English, especially in the newly-added parts.
- I see some pronouns are used without clear nouns they are pointing.
* physics
- What is the red shift value (z) of the model used for Figure 1? Is it 0-5 as written in line 81? Since the crossing is at 1e8 eV, z~0.5 seems reasonable according to Figure 2, right?
- What do 4.14e-15 and 4.6e-6 in Eq. (1) mean?
- How can I compare Esmax =1.9e-4eV and 1.9e2eV with the energy scale of the x-axis of figure 1 ?
- Could the energy scale of “The higher the field, the larger part of electron energy is outlaid on low-energy synchrotron quanta, thus the smaller part of electron energy is spent to cascade gamma-rays.” be discussed quantitatively? Can they be explained with the absolute values of Esmax?
- Please reorder the legend of Figure 2 in an ascending or descending order.
- Figure2 shows that the crossing point of z<0.003 is 6 order larger than the least dependent range (~1e7–1e9 eV) the author concludes in line 160. I can assume this least-dependent energy range moves with the position of the source. Could the author defend against this counterargue?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for the revisoin. Now the paper is ready for publication.
