Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. In Figure 6, the subfigures (a) and (b) are referenced in the text but are not labeled as such in the figure caption. Please update the caption to “Figure 6. (a) Issue without phase shift… (b) Benefit of the added phase shift…”.
2. In Section 3.2, the phrase “the inequation (5) is verified” is used repeatedly. A more precise phrasing would be “the stability condition (5) is satisfied”.
3. In Figures 18, 19, and 20, explicitly annotating the waveforms to show where the period-doubling occurs (e.g., with an arrow or text box) would improve clarity.
4. The manuscript contains a few typographical errors (e.g., “adressed (addressed)” on line 213, “slighly (slightly)” on line 223, “forcasted (forecasted)” on line 324). A thorough proofread is recommended to correct these minor issues.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All of my prervious comments are properly revised. I appreciate the authors' hard work. I think the manuscript is ready for publication.

ps. (Reponse 14) I still feel that it would have been more elegant if an expression for Φ could be given. But as a review process, I do not request this. The explanation given by the authors is good enough.