Review Reports

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a nice brief review and plans for the future about the MoEDAL experiment, based on a talk the author (who is also the spokesperson of the experiment) has given in the ICNFP2018. The talk is structured well, and there is also nice original marterial on MAPP and MALL detectors, whose depolyment will enhance the Physics horizons of MoEDAL. There is also a brief discussion on using beam-pipe searches as complementary ways to search for magnetic monopoles that could be potentially trapped there.

In this respect, I could not undestand the legend below figure 11: the legend talks about the depolyment of the MAPP detector, while the figure acxtually shows the removal of the beam pipe. The author should change the caption of figure 11 accordingly.

Moreover, I would appreciate it if the author comments briefly on whether the fact that the material of the beam pipe is Beryllium could affect the trapping of magnetic monopoles, as compared to that of aluminium, which in principle provides strong trapping of monopoles and has been used in the experiment so far. Such undcertainty issues will affect the efficiency of these beam-pipe searches, and since the beam pine method is supposed to be complementary to the existing ones, a brief comparison is due.

After these minor revisions, the paper can be accepted, as it constitutes a nice, comprehensive review of an important current experiment looking for highly ionising particles that could characterise new physics beyond the standard model.

Author Response

This is a nice brief review and plans for the future about the MoEDAL experiment, based on a talk the author (who is also the spokesperson of the experiment) has given in the ICNFP2018. The talk is structured well, and there is also nice original marterial on MAPP and MALL detectors, whose depolyment will enhance the Physics horizons of MoEDAL. There is also a brief discussion on using beam-pipe searches as complementary ways to search for magnetic monopoles that could be potentially trapped there.

No response is required to this nice comment

In this respect, I could not undestand the legend below figure 11: the legend talks about the depolyment of the MAPP detector, while the figure acxtually shows the removal of the beam pipe. The author should change the caption of figure 11 accordingly.

I will fix this error

Moreover, I would appreciate it if the author comments briefly on whether the fact that the material of the beam pipe is Beryllium could affect the trapping of magnetic monopoles, as compared to that of aluminium, which in principle provides strong trapping of monopoles and has been used in the experiment so far. Such undcertainty issues will affect the efficiency of these beam-pipe searches, and since the beam pine method is supposed to be complementary to the existing ones, a brief comparison is due.

I agree with the reviewers comments. The use of beryllium for some trapping monopoles has been questioned by some researchers but not by others.  I will  insert the necessary caveats into the paper.

After these minor revisions, the paper can be accepted, as it constitutes a nice, comprehensive review of an important current experiment looking for highly ionising particles that could characterise new physics beyond the standard model.

I will  make the necessary changes

Reviewer 2 Report

This contribution presents the MoEDAL detector describing its present  sub-detectors and their goals. It also discusses future additional sub-detectors both technically and their physics case. It recalls past scientific achievements and discusses future publications.The presention is excellent and easy to follow. I recommend publication in its present form.

Author Response

I would like to thanks this reviewer for his nice review. I believe no action is required bas on this review. But minor corrections based on the other review will be made.

Round  2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors implemented all my suggestions and hence this nice paper can be published now.