Disk Evolution Study Through Imaging of Nearby Young Stars (DESTINYS): Dynamical Evidence of a Spiral-Arm-Driving and Gap-Opening Protoplanet from SAO 206462 Spiral Motion

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that clarity is a strong point of the manuscript. It might be of interest to use the approach described in the paper to estimate in general the mass of protoplanets, even though I seem to understand that there are limitations to detect and monitor their spiral disks over long periods of time.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1,

We thank you for your prompt report, our responses are colored blue in the response document "SAO 206462 Response 20241202.pdf" in the Supplementary File(s) section. Please refer to the boldface text in the manuscript for the revised sentences.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Chen Xie et al., Disk Evolution Study Through Imaging of Nearby Young Stars (DESTINYS): Dynamical Evidence of a Spiral-arm-driving and Gap-opening Protoplanet from SAO 206462 Spiral Motion

 

Specific

 

Line 17 and elsewhere

»e.g.« does not belong inside the reference bracket

 

Line 24 Please translate this sentence from a language that loves inclusion of multiple nouns (is it German?)

“With existing blind high-contrast imaging surveys of exoplanets over the past decade returning low detection rates for exoplanets [e.g., 7,8], targeted imaging campaign…”

 

Line 29

»...new-born planets can gravitationally interact with their birthplaces…«

Not really, although very poetic.

 

Line 31

»subsignatures« 

If we talk about subsignatures, what are signatures? Is this a new word?

 

Line 33

»...planet-disk interaction…«

What exactly is this, planet-disk interaction? Please define.

 

Line 34 and elsewhere

»a pair of nearly symmetric spiral arms can be driven by a 5–10MJup companion«

A creative AI contribution, driven?

 

Line 35 and elsewhere

»current generation of high-contrast imagers«

A creative AI contribution? Imagers are not generated.

 

Line 46

Please replace coma with a period.

 

Line 48 and elsewhere

»motion rates«

What is motion rate? Is it acceleration or something different?

 

Line 53

»To find and characterize the spiral-arm-driving giant planets, performing targeted high-contrast imaging is necessary, and this requires accurate and precise spiral motion rates to guide high-contrast imaging design.«

Several grammatical offenses are included here. Please rewrite.

 

Line 56 and elsewhere

»we need to re-observe them at different temporal epochs«

AI strikes again. Several imprecisions in expression: re-observe instead of observe? Epoch instead of time? One year (line 64) is not an epoch.

 

Line 68 Rewrite

»a 5–15MJup planet [e.g., 15] would be ideal for targeted high-contrast imaging efforts with the current generation of instruments.«

Choose correct verb form for »targeted«.

Eliminate »generation«.

 

Line 73

»...to establish a 7 yr temporal separation to characterize the motion for the two spirals and thus guide targeted high-contrast imaging efforts to image the spiral-arm-driving planet(s).«

»Temporal separation« is »delay«.

Replace »for« with »off«.

Eliminate »and thus guide targeted high-contrast imaging efforts to image the spiral-arm-driving planet(s)«

Also, the sentence structure is inadequate.

 

Line 77

»...gathered SAO 206462 observations…«

You »performed« or »gathered« scattered observations? Maybe collected, identified, or just simply chose?

 

Line 188

»Before such studies are mathematically available…«

What does it mean, a mathematically available study?

 

General

 

The paper needs to be completely rewritten, stating background information in the (a) introduction.

(b) Hypothesis, (c) theory, (d) confirmation of hypothesis, (e) discussion, (f) conclusion.

 

Conclusions

Conclusions are weak , drawing again four references.

If this is a paper's conclusion »Given that such giant protoplanets have not been confirmed with direct imaging, and with the demonstrated sensitivity of JWST [51], these planets are ideal targets for current space-based exoplanet imaging to minimize the impact of dust signals from protoplanetary disks.«, this write-up should be rejected and included among arXiv archives.

 

 

Authors contributions are not listed. 

Original observations by authors are not made clear.

 

Recommendation

Reject for infinitesimal new research content and AI assistance.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2,

We thank you for your prompt report, our responses are colored blue in the response document "SAO 206462 Response 20241202.pdf" in the Supplementary File(s) section. Please refer to the boldface text in the manuscript for the revised sentences.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer's Comments on the manuscript entitled Disk Evolution Study Through Imaging of Nearby Young Stars: Dynamical Evidence of Spiral-arm-driving and Gap-opening Protoplanet from SAO 206462 Spiral Motion by Chen Xie et al.

This paper presents a study of the disk around SAO 206462 (HD 135344 B) using three epochs of observations obtained with SPHERE on the VLT. Two epochs were obtained in 2015 and 2016, and the observations have been published. The most recent epoch of observations was obtained with the same telescope and instrumental configuration in March 2022 and it is the new data presented in this paper. So far motion rates measurements for spiral arms around young stars are very scarce, so even though this paper presents only one additional observation, it is a significant contribution to the understanding of these systems. While the new data merits to be published, and the results appear to be sound, the paper needs moderate revisions as outlined below. 

Items to be addressed:

Introduction:

1.1  The up-to-date properties of SAO 206462 (HD 135344 B) must be presented here.

 

1.2  A summary of the relevant data on the presence of planets around SAO 206462 (HD 135344 B) must also be presented.

 

Methodology:

2.1 The intensity of the surface brightness distribution appears to be variable between the three epochs independently from the motion of the spiral arms, the authors should comment on it.

2.2 The claimed spiral motion should also be marked in the RA, Dec representation of Figure 1. For the sake of clarity, a new figure could be made and included.

2.3 The claimed connection between the inner and outer rings does not appear to be very convincing from Figure 3. What´s the significance of the claimed filament emission with respect to random fluctuations?

2.4 The authors should report the expected spiral motion from a Keplerian disk and compare it to their results.

 

Conclusions: 

3.1 The main conclusion of the paper is quite convincing despite of low number statistics from just 3 epochs.  The baseline of the observations (7 years) is small compared to the orbital period estimated for the planet (424 +/- 25 yr). Given the scarcity of data (3 epochs only) and the small orbital arch covered, the authors ought to acknowledge that their results may not be the final word on this system, and they should tone down the conclusions.

3.2 The assumption of circular orbit for the putative planet is quite strong. How would a non-negligible eccentricity affect the conclusions?  

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #3,

We thank you for your prompt report, our responses are colored blue in the response document "SAO 206462 Response 20241202.pdf" in the Supplementary File(s) section. Please refer to the boldface text in the manuscript for the revised sentences.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Referee report Universe-3315712

Chen Xie et al. “Disk Evolution Study Through Imaging of Nearby Young Stars (DESTINYS): Dynamical Evidence of a Spiral-arm-driving and Gap-opening Protoplanet from SAO 206462 Spiral Motion.”

This is an interesting paper with new results based upon observation and a thorough analysis of the observational data. The paper is concerned with opening of gaps in protoplanetary disks due to the presence of a planet in the disk. There are observations from 2015 – 2016 and 2022.

I find that the paper is well written and of interest to researchers on the relatively new research area: exoplanet physics. There have not been many articles on this topic in Universe, and I think it is useful and fine have this article published in Universe.

In my opinion this paper can be published in the journal Universe without any changes.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #4,

We thank you for your prompt report, our responses are colored blue in the response document "SAO 206462 Response 20241202.pdf" in the Supplementary File(s) section. Please refer to the boldface text in the manuscript for the revised sentences.

Sincerely,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Specific comments

 

Line: unmarked line 9

Why are two authors providinf email addrees, and others not?

 

Line 1 

»In the early stages of planetary system formation, young exoplanets gravitationally interact with their surrounding environments«

What about in the intermidiary stages...?

And the final stages...?

What is »surrounding environment« and how is it different from surrounds and envionment?

 

Line 1

»young exoplanets gravitationally interact and leave observable signature on protoplanetary disks«

Are we talking about young exoplanets or protoplanetary disks, and what is the differenece btween the two/

 

Line 6

By jointly measuring the motion of the two spirals at three epochs, we obtained a rotation rate of6

“−0.85◦ ±0.05◦ yr−1. It suggests…” 

What does »it« refer to?

 

 

Line 11

»Our analysis suggests that this double-spiraled system is an ideal target for protoplanet imaging«

Is this the concusion of your work?

 

Line 15, line 19, 19, etc 

»...imaged, e.g., [1].«

Is something missing after the coma?

 

Line 18

»...directly imaged planets are around...«

»Orbiting« is missing.

 

Line 19 

»The difference in the mass-period distribution of detected exoplanets in systems19

with different evolutionary stages, e.g., [6] calls for more directly imaged exoplanets to20

complement our understanding of planetary system evolution«

Editorializing and promotion whould be eliminated without a loss of information.

 

Lines 22-37

»While existing high-contrast imaging surveys of exoplanets over the past decade have low detection rates for exoplanets, e.g., [7,8], targeted campaigns are becoming more successful in imaging stellar and planetary companions at high contrast, e.g., [9–12]. However, targeted campaigns infer planetary existence based on stellar signal deviations (e.g., astrometry, radial velocity), and this could require decades of monitoring of stars.«

Editorializing and promotion whould be eliminated without a loss of information.

 

Lines 27-30 

»...young planets can gravitationally interact with their birthplaces – the protoplanetary disks, and leave observable subsignatures (e.g., spirals, gaps) on these surrounding environments, e.g., [13–15].«

One would hope that all planets interract with all mass, with possible exception of their birthplace – if I keep the flowery language of the authors.

 

Line

»...young planets can gravitationally interact with their birthplaces – the protoplanetary disks, and leave observable subsignatures (e.g., spirals, gaps) on these surrounding environments, e.g., [13–15].«

I already expressed concern about the use of the word subsignature. It appearss that it is neither defind nor corrected.

This is a concept of signture in reverse. First we see a gap, then we infer the exitence of a plaqnet, finally we »look« for a plqnet.

 

Line 88 

Long and wordy introduction that failed to summarise that an unseen planet may give rise to tho spirals in the planetary disc. However, it provided a lot of irrelevant suggestions.

 

Line 110 

»...using the IRDAP pipeline from Ref. [43] that was modified by Ref. [45]....«

Please write maningful sentences.

 

Line / Fig. 1 caption.

»...and thus they do not map the actual surface density distribution of dust particles scattering light«

What does »surface refer to in light of the fact that the authors tlk about dust, but they really meaan rocks?

 

Line / Fig. 1 caption and elsewhere

»        «

Is this a publication / print problem?

 

Line Eq. 2

Is the time unit given correctly?

 

Line 162 

»...we conclude that the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)/NIRCam candidate in Ref. [29] is not driving the two spirals at...«

Nothing in Ref. [29] is driving anything.

Do you want to say, data suggests that ... »improve wording«? 

 

Line 172

»...can constrain the possible...«

Replace the word constrain.

 

Line 206 

»...in a physically motivated way.«

What does that mean in English?

 

Line 215 

“If that filament is at the exact or approximate location of a forming giant protoplanet, that planet could be responsible for driving the two spiral arms and carving the disk gap in SAO 206462…«

Is this the supposed conclusion of the research article?

 

Line 221

»Given that spiral-arm-driving giant protoplanets have not been confirmed with direct imaging, and with the demonstrated sensitivity of JWST [56], these planets are ideal targets for current space-based exoplanet imaging since they can minimize the contamination of dust signals from protoplanetary disks using multi-wavelength imaging observations.«

Is this the supposed conclusion of the research article?

 

General Comments

Long and wordy introduction that failed to summarise that an unseen planet may give rise to tho spirals in the planetary disc.

The conclusion still reads as a research summary proposal, with the rest of the paper providing a proposal narrative and support.

This paper is suitable as a conference proceedings paper.

There are too many references to the authors own publications. 

 

Recommendation

 

Reject for reasons: being a poorly written paper, and absence of conclusions or even a stated hypothesis.

 

Author Response

Dear Editor,

Regarding the latest comments from Reviewer #2, most of them are non-scientific suggestions with very marginal improvement value at this stage, and thus we deplore the fact that Reviewer #2 did not even attempt to understand our previous well-prepared responses.. Witnessing his/her/their continuous **unconstructive comments only on formatting and language usage**, we believe Reviewer #2 has not been properly functioning as a referee, one that would instead help improve the quality and accessibility of a global team’s original research on exoplanet imaging.

If such unprofessional behavior from Reviewer #2 were to persist, we would not submit another revision. We believe that Universe has a myriad of highly qualified reviewers that can provide **constructive referee comments on scientific topics**, however this limited experience did not earn us trust in the qualification of Reviewer #2.  If this continues, we will withdraw this manuscript.

 

The above being said, the language comments from Reviewer #2 are addressed as follows while **respecting the commonly adopted** technical terminology usage by experts in the field of exoplanet high-contrast imaging. We would like to remind you that the new wave of comments from Reviewer #2 are non-research-related comments. These comments are calling for terminology that is not common practice in the field and as such **would impact negatively the readability of the paper**.

In our response below we mark numerous non-research-related comments from Reviewer #2 using [NRR].

 

While we fully understand Reviewer #2 might be a deeply-respected and well-established  researcher in other fields (and we respect and acknowledge that fact here), we would like to respectfully ask you to remove Reviewer #2 from your referee pool on exoplanet-related topics (keywords: exoplanet, planet formation, protoplanetary disks, debris disks, high-contrast imaging). In this way, we can help Universe and MDPI build a more constructive atmosphere for your future authors, at least for those from the field of exoplanets.

 

Sincerely, and Happy Holidays,

The Authors

Line: unmarked line 9

Why are two authors providinf email addrees, and others not?

Response [NRR]: These two authors are correspondence authors. The email addresses of the rest of the co-authors are available in the system.

 

 Line 1 

»In the early stages of planetary system formation, young exoplanets gravitationally interact with their surrounding environments«

What about in the intermidiary stages...?

Response: ~5-10 Myr, the disk is in the transition disk phase when there is not a lot of gas for the planet to accrete. 

 

And the final stages...?

Response: >10Myr, after the dissipation of the gas in the disk. Because this is an abstract, we didn’t make any revisions by further explaining the entire planet formation process. 

What is »surrounding environment« and how is it different from surrounds and envionment?

Response  [NRR]: The surrounding environment means the environment that is close to the planet, within its gravitational influence. The word “surrounding environment” is accurate and self-explaining in the context. 

 

Line 1

»young exoplanets gravitationally interact and leave observable signature on protoplanetary disks«

Are we talking about young exoplanets or protoplanetary disks, and what is the differenece btween the two/

Response: Young exoplanets are thought to be formed in protoplanetary disks. So they coexist, which is a common concept in this research field. 

 

 

Line 6

By jointly measuring the motion of the two spirals at three epochs, we obtained a rotation rate of6

“−0.85◦ ±0.05◦ yr−1. It suggests…” 

What does »it« refer to?

Response: We have changed ‘it’ with such a rotation rate.  

 Line 11

»Our analysis suggests that this double-spiraled system is an ideal target for protoplanet imaging«

Is this the concusion of your work?

Response  [NRR]: In this work, we analyzed the new observation of SAO 206462 obtained in 2022, which significantly increased the time span from 1 (previously) to 7 (this work) years, and derived much more accurate motion measurements (~3x smaller uncertainties).  The new motion measurement is consistent with a potential gap-opening and spiral-driving planet that is located at ~66 au in a circular orbit.  

The sentence of “.. double-spiraled system is an ideal target for protoplanet imaging” is a suggestion for future observation. 

Line 15, line 19, 19, etc 

»...imaged, e.g., [1].«

Response: [NRR].

Line 18

»...directly imaged planets are around...«

»Orbiting« is missing.

Response: [NRR].

Line 19 

»The difference in the mass-period distribution of detected exoplanets in systems19

with different evolutionary stages, e.g., [6] calls for more directly imaged exoplanets to20

complement our understanding of planetary system evolution«

Editorializing and promotion whould be eliminated without a loss of information.

Response [NRR]: We have added a bracket “(e.g., [6])” to include the citation and increase the readability. 

Lines 22-37

»While existing high-contrast imaging surveys of exoplanets over the past decade have low detection rates for exoplanets, e.g., [7,8], targeted campaigns are becoming more successful in imaging stellar and planetary companions at high contrast, e.g., [9–12]. However, targeted campaigns infer planetary existence based on stellar signal deviations (e.g., astrometry, radial velocity), and this could require decades of monitoring of stars.«

Editorializing and promotion whould be eliminated without a loss of information.

Response [NRR]: We have added a bracket “(e.g., [xxx])” to include the citation and increase the readability. 

Lines 27-30 

»...young planets can gravitationally interact with their birthplaces – the protoplanetary disks, and leave observable subsignatures (e.g., spirals, gaps) on these surrounding environments, e.g., [13–15].«

One would hope that all planets interract with all mass, with possible exception of their birthplace – if I keep the flowery language of the authors.

Response: [NRR].

Line

»...young planets can gravitationally interact with their birthplaces – the protoplanetary disks, and leave observable subsignatures (e.g., spirals, gaps) on these surrounding environments, e.g., [13–15].«

I already expressed concern about the use of the word subsignature. It appearss that it is neither defind nor corrected.

This is a concept of signture in reverse. First we see a gap, then we infer the exitence of a plaqnet, finally we »look« for a plqnet.

Response [NRR]: We respectfully disagree with the referee on this matter. There is no need to make revisions. The bracket of “(e.g., spirals, gaps)” explains what subsignatures mean. So it was already defined. 

The usage of “subsignature” or “substructure” is a common terminology apart from large-scale structures in planet formation. Refer to the citations at the end of the corresponding sentence for more usage to know more about related studies. 

Line 88 

Long and wordy introduction that failed to summarise that an unseen planet may give rise to tho spirals in the planetary disc. However, it provided a lot of irrelevant suggestions.

Response [NRR]: We respectfully disagree with the referee on this matter.

We have a whole paragraph starting on line 51 to explain that measuring the spiral motion in the disk can help to find spiral-arm-driving planets. Basically, it tells the reader that previously unseen planets may create the observable spirals and we can find them by measuring the spiral motion like this work. In addition, in the following two paragraphs, we also mentioned the potential unseen planets in SAO 206462 previously suggested by the literature. 

Line 110 

»...using the IRDAP pipeline from Ref. [43] that was modified by Ref. [45]....«

Please write maningful sentences.

Response [NRR]: The IRDAP pipeline originally published in Ref. [43] was then modified in Ref. [45], and we used the modified pipeline to reduce the data. The language editor can take care of such issues if needed. 

 

Line / Fig. 1 caption.

»...and thus they do not map the actual surface density distribution of dust particles scattering light«

What does »surface refer to in light of the fact that the authors tlk about dust, but they really meaan rocks?

Response [NRR]: At the near-infrared wavelengths, we are observing the scattered light from dust particles with sizes similar to observing wavelengths, thus a few microns. In addition, the number density of rocks (i.e., cm - m in size) is much lower than the micron-sized dust particles. A general grain size distribution (dn/da) is scaled with a^(-3.5), where a is the grain size and n is the number density. 

 

Line / Fig. 1 caption and elsewhere

»        «

Is this a publication / print problem?

Response [NRR]: We opened the PDF file using multiple software programs and didn’t see any problem with the uploaded PDF file.

Line Eq. 2

Is the time unit given correctly?

Response [NRR]: yes.

Line 162 

»...we conclude that the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)/NIRCam candidate in Ref. [29] is not driving the two spirals at...«

Nothing in Ref. [29] is driving anything.

Response [NRR]: there is a planet candidate in Ref. [29]. This candidate in Ref. [29] is not driving the two spirals because our spiral motion measurement gives a different planet location compared to Ref. [29]. 

Do you want to say, data suggests that ... »improve wording«? 

Response [NRR]: Replaced ‘we conclude’ with ‘our data suggests’

Line 172

»...can constrain the possible...«

Replace the word constrain.

Response [NRR]: Replaced with ‘predict’.

 Line 206 

»...in a physically motivated way.«

What does that mean in English?

Response [NRR]: It means something motivated by the physics behind a given situation/phenomenon. In this case, the physic is a planet that drives the spiral arms. 

Line 215 

“If that filament is at the exact or approximate location of a forming giant protoplanet, that planet could be responsible for driving the two spiral arms and carving the disk gap in SAO 206462…«

Is this the supposed conclusion of the research article?

Response [NRR]: Yes, this is one of the conclusions. 

Line 221

»Given that spiral-arm-driving giant protoplanets have not been confirmed with direct imaging, and with the demonstrated sensitivity of JWST [56], these planets are ideal targets for current space-based exoplanet imaging since they can minimize the contamination of dust signals from protoplanetary disks using multi-wavelength imaging observations.«

Is this the supposed conclusion of the research article?

Response [NRR]: The new motion measurement is consistent with a potential gap-opening and spiral-driving planet that is located at ~66 au in a circular orbit. Therefore, we give our suggestions for future observations. 

Giving suggestions/guidance for future observations in research papers is very common in exoplanet astronomy.  It not only gives a direction for readers to perform follow-up observations/research, but also indicates the limitations of the current work. In our case, we need further follow-up observation to confirm the hidden planet.   

General Comments

Long and wordy introduction that failed to summarise that an unseen planet may give rise to tho spirals in the planetary disc.

Response [NRR]: We respectfully disagree with the referee on this matter.

We have a whole paragraph starting on line 51 to explain that measuring the spiral motion in the disk can help to find spiral-arm-driving planets. Basically, it tells the reader that previously unseen planets may create the observable spirals and we can find them by measuring the spiral motion like this work. In addition, in the following two paragraphs, we also mentioned the potential unseen planets in SAO 206462 previously suggested by the literature. 

The conclusion still reads as a research summary proposal, with the rest of the paper providing a proposal narrative and support.

This paper is suitable as a conference proceedings paper.

Response [NRR]: We respectfully disagree with the referee on this matter.

In this work, we reduced and analyzed the new observation of SAO 206462 obtained in 2022, which significantly increased the time span from 1 (previously) to 7 (this work) years, and derived much more accurate motion measurements (~3x smaller uncertainties).  The new motion measurement is consistent with a potential gap-opening and spiral-driving planet that is located at ~66 au in a circular orbit.  

Although we gave observing suggestions for follow-up observation, it doesn't mean we are writing a proposal or using a proposal narrative. As detailed above, giving suggestions/guidance for future observations in research papers is very common in astronomy because it not only gives a direction for readers to perform follow-up observations/research but also indicates the limitations of the current work. In our case, we need further follow-up observation to confirm the proposed hidden planet.  

We would also like to remind Reviewer #2 that this is a study from the DESTINYS large survey using the Very Large Telescope’s SPHERE instrument, see this NASA ADS link (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/search/filter_database_fq_database=AND&filter_database_fq_database=database%3Aastronomy&filter_database_fq_database=database%3A%22astronomy%22&filter_property_fq_property=AND&filter_property_fq_property=property%3A%22refereed%22&fq=%7B!type%3Daqp%20v%3D%24fq_database%7D&fq=%7B!type%3Daqp%20v%3D%24fq_property%7D&fq_database=(database%3Aastronomy%20AND%20database%3A%22astronomy%22)&fq_property=(property%3A%22refereed%22)&p_=0&q=(DESTINYS)&sort=date%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc) for the published ones from the survey. It further connects to the ongoing SAFFRON survey using VLT/SPHERE (here at http://archive.eso.org/wdb/wdb/eso/sched_rep_arc/query?progid=111.24GG , and here at http://archive.eso.org/wdb/wdb/eso/sched_rep_arc/query?progid=112.25B7), and offers a way to research directions for JWST.

What is more, with a vision towards the future, spiral motion study has been identified as a major science case for the Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) that is currently under construction, see Section 3 of this study at https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021sf2a.conf..129M/abstract. It is also expected to undergo rapid expansion, see Section 5.1.3 of this review at https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ASPC..534..605B/abstract, thanks to the new telescope instruments. 

 

 

There are too many references to the authors own publications. 

Response [NRR]: Our team has expertise in this field of spiral motion and published papers that are fundamental in the field or closely related to this work. The editor also presents the same issues. For the question on the appropriateness of the citations, yes they are necessary. Please go ahead with the checking by the Academic Editor.

 Recommendation

 Reject for reasons: being a poorly written paper, and absence of conclusions or even a stated hypothesis.

Response [NRR]: We believe the implicit bias from Reviewer #2 against our writing style, as well as the writing style of the field, are now explicit. Apart from **only** commenting on non-scientific questions, Reviewer #2 did not provide any constructive comments in improving the quality of our original research. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION FROM AUTHORS

Upon internal discussion among our core team members, we have made a decision that if such behaviors from Reviewer #2 persist, we will withdraw this submission to Universe and instead submit to other journals.