Opto-Mechanical Photonic Crystal Cavities for Sensing Application
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I feel the manuscript is just a 'literature review', and 'not a review paper'. The authors have put a lot of text and figures as one do while doing literature survey. There are no strong/proper arguments, no comparative results, no proper conclusion and future developments. A review paper should have a very clear and compact write-up which would allow readers to have an outlook on not only the past and present trends but also on the future developments.
Also, there are very silly mistakes; to mention a few: There is a typo in the Title itself. References to be given for already published figures. Figure 3 is mistaken as Figure 1.
Author Response
Please see the attachment, thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions for our manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is an extensive review of the current status of photonic crystal cavity technology for sensing application and it is well written. The review is widely accompanied with references and preceded by basic theoretical introduction. In my opinion it is a valuable contribution to the targeted journal.
During my review I noticed a couple of issues which I would like to share with authors.
- In Figure 2a colours of Ein arrow and Eout are the same as the lines in the graph 2b. I doubt that they may be confusing as in the graph output is red while in 2a the red is the input.
- I suggest to specify/list the possible sensing application already in the introduction.
- Colours in Figure 4a correspond to the position of the peak on the horizontal axis but in 4b and 4c they are reversed. I suggest some explanation in the caption.
- In the description of Fig. 4 authors use $Lambda_L$ and $Lambda_{cav}$. I suggest to place these symbols in the Figure.
- L. 619 Authors touch an interesting argument about overcoming the SQL. I would suggest adding a shot explanation on this topic or include a paragraphs in the section with theoretical introduction.
Minor text changes:
1. In the title "interaction"
2. Line 12 mechanically instead of mechanical
3. Reference 7 and 78 are missing information about the publishing house
4. Figure 3 is labelled 1
5. Order of letters labelling sub-figures of Fig. 5 is confusing
6. Figure 6.b is not clear due to the same colour of both parts of the device
7. Line. 472 piston-rod
8. In my opinion some rarely used acronyms could be skipped (e.g. PnBG L. 533)
9. L. 998 "Besides," is repeated twice
Author Response
Please see the attachment, thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions for our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This review paper includes lots of schematics but to be more comprehensive, authors need to include more figures of experimental results and photos.
Also, more information should be provided on actuation methods, especially on Figure 5. For example in e-1, e-2 and e-3, what kind of actuators are used?
In the line 998, you should delete one "Besides,".
Author Response
Please see the attachment, thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions for our manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
A thorough revise of the manuscript is made by the authors; it now looks well-structured, and the content presented can be considered as a review paper. I recommend for publication of the paper in its present form.
