Simulation Study of a Bright Attosecond γ-ray Source Generation by Irradiating an Intense Laser on a Cone Target

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for submitting this article. Unfortunately this article does not follow the authors guidelines of the journal, specifically research manuscript sections. 

• Materials and Methods: They should be described with sufficient detail to allow others to replicate and build on published results. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited. Give the name and version of any software used and make clear whether computer code used is available. Include any pre-registration codes.
• Results: Provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

There is a lack of information about the experiment. No experimental comparison was done among different groups as new 90° target was proposed. Whole article reads as report and not a case control experimental research.

Best regards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the paper is discussing about the tracjectories of electrons and it interactions with material designs to produce electron bunches and gamma rays (due to its attosecond properties and energies produced) by applying the intense laser. There are a fe comments:

1. The study is done by simulation only where the parameters has been obtained from previous research papers for comparison, thus the word 'simulation study' must be in the title
2. Abstract is not systematically written. It must consist a brief introduction, brief methodology and analysis followed by findings and conclusion
3. The problem statement is not clearly stated. Why this simulation for cone is needed and why bright attosecond gamma rays is important to be considered. What is the previous limitation studies to be overcome?
4. Methodology: since the parameters is obtained from some experimental work from other researchers, it must be expand and explain with proper citations
5. Results and discussion is focus on NCS simulation for electron tractories that leads for gamma rays production. Here, how the authors indentify the gamma rays and differentiate with high energy X-rays production due to NCS? Please explain the parameters such as frequency and threshold energies? (6 MeV is also belong to high energy X-rays for high electrons acceleration)
6. The paper must highlight theoritically output based on simulation and calculation since no experimental work have been done as a fundamental reference
7. The paper must be stricly reformatted, in terms of writing style and organisation to fit with scientific write-up

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is written clearly and understandably.

I only couldn't find, what does the abbreviation FWHM (meaning half-width) stand for?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have relfect well to my questions for the revised manuscript. Simulation study has been highlighted, which is the crucial things to be mention for clarity. There are acceptable prove have been provided to support the fundamental understanding. From my review, I think the revised manuscript is now ready for publication. 

Authors also mention the recommendation for future study, which I think beneficial for future research either in simulation or lab-based studies.