Quasi-Homogeneous Black Hole Thermodynamics in Non-Commutative Geometry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe reviewer comments are in the attached file (Universe-3460313.pdf).
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorssee comments
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease allow me to share my confusions with the authors. I have made a list below so that authors can understand my confusions. This is just my personal opinion, so maybe there could be a serious lack of understanding, but please allow me to explain honestly what I felt. I felt that the authors' physical concepts are so weak that the calculations appear to be empty.
1. Given the physical meaning of $\Theta$, it can be assumed that $\hbar$($\hbar^{-1}$) is the scale, as the author mentioned at the line 132. In this paper, the ratio to the mass of the black hole appears in the correction term, but isn't it a "physically meaningless correction" that is too small compared to other corrections, like the "quantum effect of a basketball" ? If only extremely small black holes are being targeted, this must be clearly stated in the text. Such black holes have very short lifetimes and high radiation. I felt it would be unreasonable to call it "thermal equilibrium".
2. What exactly are the "extensive" and "intensive" variables supposed to be? Since $\Theta$ is a fundamental constant, it is problematic to treat it as an "thermodynamic variable".
3.Equation (14) causes serious confusion. It is probably a typo.
4.Please provide a correct and specific physical picture of the "thermal equilibrium". The energy only leaves the black hole by radiation. Please explain clearly "where" and "what" the concept of equilibrium is realised by.
5.I humbly feel that the "phase transition" discussed in this paper is meaningless. I would like clarification as to what constitutes the "phase transition".
I hope that the physical picture should first be adequately explained and then the specific meaning of each variable should be given before any calculations are made. I cannot agree to publish this manuscript as a paper in its present form.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorssee comments
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised version clearly sets out the objectives of the paper and what has been achieved so far.　　I recommend the publication of the revised version of this paper.
