Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is interesting and with good quality

Author Response

Thank you!

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper discusses Hawking radiation of black holes.

However, its main lack consists in the fact that, in this paper, there is no division line between previously known results and original results found by the authors. What is the exact contribution made by the authors? It must be clarified. The authors should emphasize which their results are essentially new, and what is their advantage in comparison with previous studies.

The number of new references is insufficient, most of the references are rather old papers on the topic.

Moreover, the paper is badly written and contains a lot of grammatical errors. So it can be reconsidered only after a very profound revision.

Author Response

See the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The author offers a new explanation for the information loss paradox  and the state of Hawking radiation, along with some worked example for black hole solutions. All in all, the paper is suitable for its publication in its current form.

Author Response

Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

By my opinion, the paper is essentially improved and now can be published.