Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript describes the status of multimessenger astronomy with special emphasis on the role of neutrinos in this field. It is not an account of original research, but a review of the current state of the filed and its prospects. The authors give a balanced, yet critical overview of the topic. The manuscript is of interest for readers, who wish to get a short, yet concise introduction of the field of multimessenger astronomy or who want to update their knowledge to the recent state of the research. I recommend the publication of the manuscript after minor language and editorial modifications, which are detailed in the following, sorted by line numbers.

1: I do not understand the intention of the sentence. More development than what? Did you mean "most significant" development? Please give a bit more details on what you want to say.

8: Galileo times -> Galileo's times

12: and that are produced -> and that they are produced

12: I find this part slightly misleading. One could mention that many low energy CRs originate from our sun and higher energies are due to more distant sources. This is obvious to the expert but maybe worthwhile to mention to the non-expert reader.

65: using a a pre-selected -> using a pre-selected

84: can not -> cannot

94: gold and bronze alerts are not defined

131: GRBs are other type -> GRBs are another type

145: will primarily be used to study of the neutrino properties -> will primarily be used to study neutrino properties

162: It might be worthwhile to mention how the sensitivity is increased (e.g. density of strings)

166: kilometre -> kilometer (most parts of the manuscript are American English)

178: Section 4 could benefit from subsection headings. E.g. in line 178 one can use a subsection heading like "Alert systems and strategies". The part before could be something like "Future instruments and instrument upgrades". The last part could have a heading like "future challenges".

178: It might be interesting to mention to the non-expert reader somewhere in this paragraph that neutrinos present an early-warning mechanism due to their early arrival time.

226: favourable -> favorable (most parts of the manuscript are American English)

237: HE is not defined.

Figure 2: I believe the original figure has not been published under open access license. Please make sure you have the permission to re-publish a modified version.

260: have been claimed already evidences for such joint production -> have been claims for evidence for such a joint production

References in general: the addition of a DOI where available would be most helpful.

References 37, 42, 48, and 69: Instead of mentioning the date of access, I believe it is better to state explicitly the version, e.g. 2104.09491 -> 2104.09491v2

 

Author Response

Dear referee,

Thank you very much. Your comments and suggestions are really appreciated.

We have implemented the editions to the text following your review. Moreover, there is some new text, highlighted in blue, added based on your (and other referee's) comments.

Figures 2 and 3 are plotted using the points from the referenced publications, they are mostly identical to the figure which refers the “Figure adapted from [*].” reference in the caption, but are done from scratch. Indeed, in the case of Figure 2 is included more data than in the adaption reference. In both cases, request for a figure in the journal page seems to be free.

Regards,
Agustín & Paco.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a concise review about multimessenger astronomy using neutrinos a new branch of astroparticle physics.

The paper is written in a clear manner. I have detected only few imperfections:

line 118: change --> chance

line 238: star forming --> star-forming

The draft can be published as it is .

Author Response

Dear referee,

Thank you very much. Your comments and suggestions are really appreciated.

We have implemented the editions to the text following your review. Moreover, there is some new text, highlighted in blue, added based on your (and other referee's) comments.

Regards,
Agustín & Paco.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The review: "Multimessenger Astronomy with Neutrinos" is a brief but comprehensive review of astronomy that can be carried with current neutrino telescopes in operation and future prospects. I recommend its publication in the journal Universe. It covers the state-of-the-art of multimessenger signals and the hints of neutrino signals being published by different collaborations in coincidence with observations in the electromagnetic spectrum or gravitational wave observations, and prospects for future upgrades to telescopes being planned. The review is focussed on ultrahigh-energy neutrino astronomy and does not include lower energy neutrino observations (apart from SN1987a), which may be obtained at future facilities such as Hyper-Kamiokande or DUNE and will commence data taking at the end of this decade.

The review is comprehensive and will be useful for researchers to gain an overall overview of this burgeoning area of astronomy research. However, it may be important in the text to also highlight the potential for the Hyper-Kamiokande and DUNE facilities to perform neutrino astronomy and to contribute to the worldwide network of neutrino telescopes. 

The text is generally well written. However, there are some minor suggested corrections that will improve the usage of English in the text:

Line 4: observation done -> observations carried out

Line 7-8: From Galileo times -> From the times of Galileo

Line 29: multiwavelengths -> multiwavelength

Line 85-86: it has been recently discovered a compelling neutrino-radio correlation -> a compelling neutrino-radio correlation has been recently discovered

Line 145-146: to study of the neutrino properties -> for the study of neutrino properties (or "to study neutrino properties")

Line 159: increase IceCube effective -> increase the IceCube effective

Line 174 -> expected -> is expected

Line 178 -> amount -> number

Line 183: this announcements -> these announcements

Line 260: there have been claimed already evidences -> there is evidence that has already been claimed

Reference 69: This reference has now been published - Ke Fang and Kohta Murase 2021 The Astrophysical Journal 919 93 

Author Response

Dear referee,

Thank you very much. Your comments and suggestions are really appreciated.

We have implemented the editions to the text following your review. Moreover, there is some new text, highlighted in blue, added based on your (and other referee's) comments.

Regards,
Agustín & Paco.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf