Gamma-Ray Bursts: What Do We Know Today That We Did Not Know 10 Years Ago?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript "GRBs: what do we know today that we did not know 10
years ago?" provides an excellent, thorough (although perhaps biased)
review of the last 10 years of research on gamma-ray bursts. This
manuscript is absolutely of sufficient quality to deserve publication
in Galaxies.
I have a number of suggestions below that may improve the manuscript.
I would like to emphasize that these suggestions are exactly
that--suggestions. The author may or may not choose to implement
them. My acceptance of the manuscript does not depend on addressing
them. I do not think I need to see a revised version of the
manuscript.
------------------------------------------------------------
I recommend "GRBs" be spelled out in the title: "Gamma-Ray Bursts"
All of the figures in the manuscript are taken from other
publications. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, this is a
review manuscript after all. But the author and journal editors
should work together to make sure appropriate permissions are obtained
from these journals and authors for all of the figures.
All of the figures are referred to as "cartoons" in their captions,
which I think is a bit too informal for a publication like this. I
would refer to Figures 1, 2, and 5 as "illustrations". Figures 3 and
4 are not illustrations or cartoons at all but the results of detailed
computer simulations. Figure 6 is also not a cartoon or illustration
but the result of a detailed analysis.
One interesting recent result that goes unmentioned in the manuscript
is that a few GRBs seem to be associated with magnetar giant flares
(MGFs; Burns et al. 2021, ApJL, vol. 907, p. L28). For the low flux
part of the GRB population, there may even be more MGFs than compact
object mergers (Beniamini et al. 2024, arXiv:2411.16846). This may be
something to add to the manuscript.
L58-59: I don't think this explanation for the afterglow is totally
accurate; using the word "heats" implies the afterglow is caused by
thermal emission of the shocked ISM. More accurately, the shock
accelerates non-thermal electrons, which radiate synchrotron emission,
which causes the afterglow (e.g. Sari, Piran, & Narayan 1998).
L142-3: Here it should be clarified what is meant by "observed signal".
I think the manuscript means the prompt emission here.
L183-4: I think here the manuscript should be more clear on what Type Ib/c
supernovae are--core collapse supernovae with stripped hydrogen envelopes.
L215: It is unclear to me what is meant by "their location relative to
the light". Also I'm not sure reference 92 is appropriate here, since that
paper describes Long GRBs.
L227: I think it is worth mentioning here that LIGO was definitely not
sensitive enough at the time to detect gravitational waves from this
merger, even if it was operating at the time.
L426-428: I think the description of PIC simulations here could use a
little more detail. For each cell, the electromagnetic fields are
computed from all the particles in a cell; then each particle not in
that cell has its Lorentz force and motion computed based on the EM
field from that cell, where all the particles are treated as a whole.
And so on for each cell and particle.
L665: According to reference 276, LHAASO detected this GRB only up to
7 TeV. According to Cao et al. 2023, Science Advances, vol. 9, eadj2778,
it was detected up to 13 TeV.
Much of the discussion in L674-702 seems to refer only to GRB
190114C--for instance, I think the parameter values for epsilon_e and
epsilon_B on L701 are only for this burst. I think this should be
stated explicitly. Also the meaning of epsilon_e and epsilon_B should
be stated explicitly (presumably they're the fraction of burst energy
going into electrons and Poynting flux, respectively).
L718-723: what wavelength is this polarization measured at? Radio?
Optical?
I few typos, etc.:
L45: "poer law" --> "power law"
L132: "Balndford" --> "Blandford"
L230: "light-shedding" --> "clarifying" (?)
L318: "te" --> "the"
L333: "steady stae dik" --> "steady state disk"
L527: "bout" --> "about"
L540: "slat" --> "flat"
Author Response
Dear Editor,
I thank both reviewers for their comments. I addressed all the comments gives, which I find that indeed improve the manuscript.
I believe that the revised manuscript is now ready for publication in Galaxies.
Sincerely,
Asaf Pe'er
REFEREE 1
>>The manuscript "GRBs: what do we know today that we did not know 10
>>years ago?" provides an excellent, thorough (although perhaps biased)
>>review of the last 10 years of research on gamma-ray bursts. This
>>manuscript is absolutely of sufficient quality to deserve publication
>>in Galaxies.
>>I have a number of suggestions below that may improve the manuscript.
>>I would like to emphasize that these suggestions are exactly
>>that--suggestions. The author may or may not choose to implement
>>them. My acceptance of the manuscript does not depend on addressing
>>them. I do not think I need to see a revised version of the
>>manuscript.
I thank the reviewer for his/her kind words, and for acceptance of this manuscript.
------------------------------------------------------------
>>I recommend "GRBs" be spelled out in the title: "Gamma-Ray Bursts"
corrected
>>All of the figures in the manuscript are taken from other
>>publications. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, this is a
>>review manuscript after all. But the author and journal editors
>>should work together to make sure appropriate permissions are obtained
>>from these journals and authors for all of the figures.
4/6 figures are mine, and thus I believe I have full rights on them.
>>All of the figures are referred to as "cartoons" in their captions,
>>which I think is a bit too informal for a publication like this. I
>>would refer to Figures 1, 2, and 5 as "illustrations". Figures 3 and
>>4 are not illustrations or cartoons at all but the results of detailed
>>computer simulations. Figure 6 is also not a cartoon or illustration
>>but the result of a detailed analysis.
Agree, all fixed.
>>One interesting recent result that goes unmentioned in the manuscript
>>is that a few GRBs seem to be associated with magnetar giant flares
>>(MGFs; Burns et al. 2021, ApJL, vol. 907, p. L28). For the low flux
>>part of the GRB population, there may even be more MGFs than compact
>>object mergers (Beniamini et al. 2024, arXiv:2411.16846). This may be
>something to add to the manuscript.
I thank the reviewer for pointing this out. A new subsection (2.3) was added where this is discussed.
>>L58-59: I don't think this explanation for the afterglow is totally
>>accurate; using the word "heats" implies the afterglow is caused by
>>thermal emission of the shocked ISM. More accurately, the shock
>>accelerates non-thermal electrons, which radiate synchrotron emission,
>>which causes the afterglow (e.g. Sari, Piran, & Narayan 1998).
Explanation extended and is now more accurately describing the known physics.
>>L142-3: Here it should be clarified what is meant by "observed signal".
>>I think the manuscript means the prompt emission here.
Corrected.
>>L183-4: I think here the manuscript should be more clear on what Type Ib/c
>>supernovae are--core collapse supernovae with stripped hydrogen envelopes.
Explanation extended (put in a footnote, to keep fluent reading).
>>L215: It is unclear to me what is meant by "their location relative to
>>the light". Also I'm not sure reference 92 is appropriate here, since that
>>paper describes Long GRBs.
This sentence was modified, and now reads "their location relative to the light: long GRBs are far more concentrated in the very brightest regions of their host galaxies \cite{Fruchter+06} than short ones \cite{Fong+13}.", which also explains ref. 92 [Fruchter et. al., 2006].
>>L227: I think it is worth mentioning here that LIGO was definitely not
>>sensitive enough at the time to detect gravitational waves from this
>>merger, even if it was operating at the time.
True, and fixed.
>>L426-428: I think the description of PIC simulations here could use a
>>little more detail. For each cell, the electromagnetic fields are
>>computed from all the particles in a cell; then each particle not in
>>that cell has its Lorentz force and motion computed based on the EM
>>field from that cell, where all the particles are treated as a whole.
>>And so on for each cell and particle.
The paragraph was split into 2, the first part provides a more detailed explanation on PIC method.
>>L665: According to reference 276, LHAASO detected this GRB only up to
>>7 TeV. According to Cao et al. 2023, Science Advances, vol. 9, eadj2778,
>>it was detected up to 13 TeV.
Thank you for the correction. This had been corrected.
>>Much of the discussion in L674-702 seems to refer only to GRB
>>190114C--for instance, I think the parameter values for epsilon_e and
>>epsilon_B on L701 are only for this burst. I think this should be
>>stated explicitly. Also the meaning of epsilon_e and epsilon_B should
>>be stated explicitly (presumably they're the fraction of burst energy
>>going into electrons and Poynting flux, respectively).
Correct, and fixed. The values quoted are indeed specific for GRB190114C, though similar values are found for other bursts. Anyway, this is now clearly stated.
>>L718-723: what wavelength is this polarization measured at? Radio?
>>Optical?
It is actually in the X-rays, as CZTI instrument on board Astro-SAT is sensitive to these energies. This had been specifically added.
>>I few typos, etc.:
>>L45: "poer law" --> "power law"
Corrected
>>L132: "Balndford" --> "Blandford"
Corrected
>>L230: "light-shedding" --> "clarifying" (?)
>>L318: "te" --> "the"
corrected
>>L333: "steady stae dik" --> "steady state disk"
corrected
>>L527: "bout" --> "about"
corrected
>>L540: "slat" --> "flat"
corrected
REFEREE 2
>>This is a clear and well written review of the developments in our understanding of GRBs. The review emphasizes the progress in various aspects of GRB science. I recommend publication.
I thank the reviewer for his/her kind words and appreciation of this work.
>>The authors do not discuss the neutron star merger observed in 2017, nor the "boat" observed in 2021 in much detail dismissing the events as special cases, possibly belonging to new GRB classes. This referee would have preferred an expanded discussion of lessons learned from their observation for the physics that they do discuss in more detail in the article. Maybe space limitations are a consideration here.
Indeed, this part was insufficiently discussed. In the revised version, I added a subsection dedicated to discussing GW/GRB170817A and the lessons learned from it (subsection 2.2.1).
As for the BOAT GRB221009A, it is mentioned in the abstract as well as in section 8.1, dedicated to the origin of the observed pair annihilation line. As this point, I am not yet certain on what additional lessons can be learned from this GRB, and I therefore prefer not to add more speculative information. Possibly, in the next review, the importance of this GRB will be clearer..
>>The manuscript needs another reading to eliminate typos.
I have read the manuscript again, and made a great effort to eliminate all typos I could find.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a clear and well written review of the developments in our understanding of GRBs. The review emphasizes the progress in various aspects of GRB science. I recommend publication.
The authors do not discuss the neutron star merger observed in 2017, nor the "boat" observed in 2021 in much detail dismissing the events as special cases, possibly belonging to new GRB classes. This referee would have preferred an expanded discussion of lessons learned from their observation for the physics that they do discuss in more detail in the article. Maybe space limitations are a consideration here.
The manuscript needs another reading to eliminate typos.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
I thank both reviewers for their comments. I addressed all the comments gives, which I find that indeed improve the manuscript.
I believe that the revised manuscript is now ready for publication in Galaxies.
Sincerely,
Asaf Pe'er
REFEREE 1
>>The manuscript "GRBs: what do we know today that we did not know 10
>>years ago?" provides an excellent, thorough (although perhaps biased)
>>review of the last 10 years of research on gamma-ray bursts. This
>>manuscript is absolutely of sufficient quality to deserve publication
>>in Galaxies.
>>I have a number of suggestions below that may improve the manuscript.
>>I would like to emphasize that these suggestions are exactly
>>that--suggestions. The author may or may not choose to implement
>>them. My acceptance of the manuscript does not depend on addressing
>>them. I do not think I need to see a revised version of the
>>manuscript.
I thank the reviewer for his/her kind words, and for acceptance of this manuscript.
------------------------------------------------------------
>>I recommend "GRBs" be spelled out in the title: "Gamma-Ray Bursts"
corrected
>>All of the figures in the manuscript are taken from other
>>publications. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, this is a
>>review manuscript after all. But the author and journal editors
>>should work together to make sure appropriate permissions are obtained
>>from these journals and authors for all of the figures.
4/6 figures are mine, and thus I believe I have full rights on them.
>>All of the figures are referred to as "cartoons" in their captions,
>>which I think is a bit too informal for a publication like this. I
>>would refer to Figures 1, 2, and 5 as "illustrations". Figures 3 and
>>4 are not illustrations or cartoons at all but the results of detailed
>>computer simulations. Figure 6 is also not a cartoon or illustration
>>but the result of a detailed analysis.
Agree, all fixed.
>>One interesting recent result that goes unmentioned in the manuscript
>>is that a few GRBs seem to be associated with magnetar giant flares
>>(MGFs; Burns et al. 2021, ApJL, vol. 907, p. L28). For the low flux
>>part of the GRB population, there may even be more MGFs than compact
>>object mergers (Beniamini et al. 2024, arXiv:2411.16846). This may be
>something to add to the manuscript.
I thank the reviewer for pointing this out. A new subsection (2.3) was added where this is discussed.
>>L58-59: I don't think this explanation for the afterglow is totally
>>accurate; using the word "heats" implies the afterglow is caused by
>>thermal emission of the shocked ISM. More accurately, the shock
>>accelerates non-thermal electrons, which radiate synchrotron emission,
>>which causes the afterglow (e.g. Sari, Piran, & Narayan 1998).
Explanation extended and is now more accurately describing the known physics.
>>L142-3: Here it should be clarified what is meant by "observed signal".
>>I think the manuscript means the prompt emission here.
Corrected.
>>L183-4: I think here the manuscript should be more clear on what Type Ib/c
>>supernovae are--core collapse supernovae with stripped hydrogen envelopes.
Explanation extended (put in a footnote, to keep fluent reading).
>>L215: It is unclear to me what is meant by "their location relative to
>>the light". Also I'm not sure reference 92 is appropriate here, since that
>>paper describes Long GRBs.
This sentence was modified, and now reads "their location relative to the light: long GRBs are far more concentrated in the very brightest regions of their host galaxies \cite{Fruchter+06} than short ones \cite{Fong+13}.", which also explains ref. 92 [Fruchter et. al., 2006].
>>L227: I think it is worth mentioning here that LIGO was definitely not
>>sensitive enough at the time to detect gravitational waves from this
>>merger, even if it was operating at the time.
True, and fixed.
>>L426-428: I think the description of PIC simulations here could use a
>>little more detail. For each cell, the electromagnetic fields are
>>computed from all the particles in a cell; then each particle not in
>>that cell has its Lorentz force and motion computed based on the EM
>>field from that cell, where all the particles are treated as a whole.
>>And so on for each cell and particle.
The paragraph was split into 2, the first part provides a more detailed explanation on PIC method.
>>L665: According to reference 276, LHAASO detected this GRB only up to
>>7 TeV. According to Cao et al. 2023, Science Advances, vol. 9, eadj2778,
>>it was detected up to 13 TeV.
Thank you for the correction. This had been corrected.
>>Much of the discussion in L674-702 seems to refer only to GRB
>>190114C--for instance, I think the parameter values for epsilon_e and
>>epsilon_B on L701 are only for this burst. I think this should be
>>stated explicitly. Also the meaning of epsilon_e and epsilon_B should
>>be stated explicitly (presumably they're the fraction of burst energy
>>going into electrons and Poynting flux, respectively).
Correct, and fixed. The values quoted are indeed specific for GRB190114C, though similar values are found for other bursts. Anyway, this is now clearly stated.
>>L718-723: what wavelength is this polarization measured at? Radio?
>>Optical?
It is actually in the X-rays, as CZTI instrument on board Astro-SAT is sensitive to these energies. This had been specifically added.
>>I few typos, etc.:
>>L45: "poer law" --> "power law"
Corrected
>>L132: "Balndford" --> "Blandford"
Corrected
>>L230: "light-shedding" --> "clarifying" (?)
>>L318: "te" --> "the"
corrected
>>L333: "steady stae dik" --> "steady state disk"
corrected
>>L527: "bout" --> "about"
corrected
>>L540: "slat" --> "flat"
corrected
REFEREE 2
>>This is a clear and well written review of the developments in our understanding of GRBs. The review emphasizes the progress in various aspects of GRB science. I recommend publication.
I thank the reviewer for his/her kind words and appreciation of this work.
>>The authors do not discuss the neutron star merger observed in 2017, nor the "boat" observed in 2021 in much detail dismissing the events as special cases, possibly belonging to new GRB classes. This referee would have preferred an expanded discussion of lessons learned from their observation for the physics that they do discuss in more detail in the article. Maybe space limitations are a consideration here.
Indeed, this part was insufficiently discussed. In the revised version, I added a subsection dedicated to discussing GW/GRB170817A and the lessons learned from it (subsection 2.2.1).
As for the BOAT GRB221009A, it is mentioned in the abstract as well as in section 8.1, dedicated to the origin of the observed pair annihilation line. As this point, I am not yet certain on what additional lessons can be learned from this GRB, and I therefore prefer not to add more speculative information. Possibly, in the next review, the importance of this GRB will be clearer..
>>The manuscript needs another reading to eliminate typos.
I have read the manuscript again, and made a great effort to eliminate all typos I could find.
