Stimulated Raman Scattering Microscopy: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The present paper offers a brief introduction to the field of SRS microscopy and its applications. Altought not particularly original and synthetic it is well written and could be a must first read for people new in this field. I do not find any mistakes and the work is well organized.

However, the paper would have much benefited by a more extensive applications section, with more example from the literature or from the authors'work. For example it would be interesting to report images at spectral region other than C-H stretching,  for example in the fingerprint region.

Author Response

[Response]: Thank you for your constructive feedback on our paper. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the clarity and organization of the work.

SRS microscopy applications are many, and often, a number of reviews for each application are reported in the literature. Acknowledging the impossibility of covering every possible application, we are forced to select only some of them.

We agree with the reviewer that imaging in spectral regions other than C-H stretching, for example, the fingerprint, is an important issue for SRS microscopy. However, it is not thorough in the work because, in our opinion, it is also related to chemical aspects (see paragraph 3.4 Improvement in Chemical Sensitivity and references therein), while in our paper, we would like to privilege physical aspects which are related to our knowledge, competences and the scopes of the journal. We hope that the reviewer can understand us.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

To address the comments for revision on the manuscript "Stimulated Raman Scattering Microscopy: a review":

1. 1. Section Numbering: It's essential to correct the section numbering after 3.4 to ensure a logical flow and ease of navigation for readers. A thorough check throughout the document to fix any discrepancies in section numbering will enhance the manuscript's structure.

2. 2. Detail and Depth in Section 3.2 (Speed): Expanding on the specifics of how speed is achieved in SRS microscopy, possibly by including more technical details, examples of application, or comparative speeds with other techniques, will significantly enrich this section. This could involve discussing factors that influence speed, implications for image quality, or advancements in laser technology.

3. 3. Figure Illustration Structure: Revising the layout and presentation of figures to ensure they are well-structured and clearly support the text will improve reader comprehension. Each figure should be directly referenced within the text, with captions providing succinct explanations of what is depicted.

4. 4. Expansion of Section 3.4 (Resolution Improvement Techniques): Broadening the discussion beyond Expansion Microscopy to include other resolution enhancement techniques such as structured illumination, doughnut-depletion beams, and tip enhancement will provide a more comprehensive overview of the field. This section should outline the principles, advantages, and limitations of each method, offering readers a broader perspective on available technologies.

5. 5. References: Increasing the number and diversity of references, especially recent studies that highlight advancements and current trends in SRS microscopy, will strengthen the manuscript's credibility and informational value.

Incorporating these revisions will strengthen the manuscript, making it a more valuable resource for readers interested in the current state and future possibilities of SRS microscopy.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript "Stimulated Raman Scattering Microscopy: a review" exhibits a good level of English language proficiency overall. The technical terminology is appropriately used, and the complex concepts are communicated clearly.

Author Response

1. Section Numbering: It's essential to correct the section numbering after 3.4 to ensure a logical flow and ease of navigation for readers. A thorough check throughout the document to fix any discrepancies in section numbering will enhance the manuscript's structure.

[Response]: We have taken into account and corrected the manuscript accordingly.

2. Detail and Depth in Section 3.2 (Speed): Expanding on the specifics of how speed is achieved in SRS microscopy, possibly by including more technical details, examples of application, or comparative speeds with other techniques, will significantly enrich this section. This could involve discussing factors that influence speed, implications for image quality, or advancements in laser technology.

[Response]: We have expanded the subparagraph speed according to the reviewer’s request. We have changed the numbering of subparagraphs. The new number is 3.3 for sections devoted to speed.

3. Figure Illustration Structure: Revising the layout and presentation of figures to ensure they are well-structured and clearly support the text will improve reader comprehension. Each figure should be directly referenced within the text, with captions providing succinct explanations of what is depicted.

[Response]: We have taken into account the above comments from the reviewers.

4. Expansion of Section 3.4 (Resolution Improvement Techniques): Broadening the discussion beyond Expansion Microscopy to include other resolution enhancement techniques such as structured illumination, doughnut-depletion beams, and tip enhancement will provide a more comprehensive overview of the field. This section should outline the principles, advantages, and limitations of each method, offering readers a broader perspective on available technologies.

[Response]: We have expanded the subparagraph according to the reviewer’s request. In the revised version of the paper, we have changed the name of the subparagraph. The new name is “3.5: Super-resolution”.

5. References: Increasing the number and diversity of references, especially recent studies that highlight advancements and current trends in SRS microscopy, will strengthen the manuscript's credibility and informational value.

[Response]: We have increased the number of references, adding about 50 references

Incorporating these revisions will strengthen the manuscript, making it a more valuable resource for readers interested in the current state and future possibilities of SRS microscopy.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript “Stimulated Raman Scattering Microscopy: a review” exhibits a good level of English language proficiency overall. The technical terminology is appropriately used, and the complex concepts are communicated clearly.

[Response]: We thank the reviewer for the positive comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a well-written overview of the basic principles, measurement issues, and applications of Stimulated Raman Scattering Microscopy. This is not the first review on this topic, including for the authors of this manuscript, who are co-authors of the review “Stimulated Raman scattering: towards applications in nano and biophotonics,” published in Advances in Nonlinear Photonics last year. The authors of the manuscript set a goal to offer a broad overview on this topic and provide guidance for newcomers to this field. The review basically represents the latest publications on this issue. However, the text of the manuscript needs minor revision.

Section 3.2. Speed is written extremely succinctly, based on only three articles published in 2000-2009. I propose to supplement this section with the results of more modern publications, for example 10.1364/OPTICA.3.001377; 10.1364/OL.42.000659; 10.1364/OL.42.001548; 10.1038/lsa.2017.179; 10.7150/thno.38551; 10.1364/OPTICA.4.000044; 10.1021/acs.jpcb.2c09114 or others at the authors' choice

The authors of the manuscript rightly note that “the laws of quantum mechanics fundamentally limit the performance of SRS spectroscopy and microscopy for bio-imaging regarding sensitivity, speed, and resolution and that the solution to this problem is in next-generation Raman microscopes with quantum-enhanced sensitivity”. However, this question was not developed in the text of the manuscript. The authors limited themselves to only two references [87] and [88]. In development of these papers, dozens of articles on quantum-enhanced Raman spectroscopy for bioimaging applications have been published in the last 2-3 years, for example, 10.1117/12.2646648; 10.1063/5.0009681; 10.1063/5.0151493; 10.1364/OL.509616 and others, which in my opinion should at least be cited in this manuscript.

There are a lot of abbreviations in the manuscript. Moreover, some of them are mentioned in the text only once (MARS, FGL, FFPE), some are decoding several times (ExM, SRS, hsSRS, ALS), and some are given without abbreviation meaning (DNA, CRS). If this does not contradict the rules of the journal, then I would suggest that the authors provide a definition of all abbreviations at the end of the manuscript text before the list of references.

Author Response

The manuscript is a well-written overview of the basic principles, measurement issues, and applications of Stimulated Raman Scattering Microscopy. This is not the first review on this topic, including for the authors of this manuscript, who are co-authors of the review “Stimulated Raman scattering: towards applications in nano and biophotonics,” published in Advances in Nonlinear Photonics last year. The authors of the manuscript set a goal to offer a broad overview on this topic and provide guidance for newcomers to this field. The review basically represents the latest publications on this issue. However, the text of the manuscript needs minor revision.

[Response]: We thank reviewer for his/her positive appreciation of our work.

Section 3.2. Speed is written extremely succinctly, based on only three articles published in 2000-2009. I propose to supplement this section with the results of more modern publications, for example 10.1364/OPTICA.3.001377; 10.1364/OL.42.000659; NO 10.1364/OL.42.001548; NO 10.1038/lsa.2017.179; 10.7150/thno.38551; 10.1364/OPTICA.4.000044; 10.1021/acs.jpcb.2c09114 or others at the authors' choice.

[Response]: We have expanded the subparagraph speed discussing the results of papers suggested by reviewer.

The authors of the manuscript rightly note that “the laws of quantum mechanics fundamentally limit the performance of SRS spectroscopy and microscopy for bio-imaging regarding sensitivity, speed, and resolution and that the solution to this problem is in next-generation Raman microscopes with quantum-enhanced sensitivity”. However, this question was not developed in the text of the manuscript. The authors limited themselves to only two references [87] and [88]. In development of these papers, dozens of articles on quantum-enhanced Raman spectroscopy for bioimaging applications have been published in the last 2-3 years, for example, 1) 10.1117/12.2646648; 10.1063/5.0009681_NO; 2) 10.1063/5.0151493 NL; 3)10.1364/OL.509616 and others, which in my opinion should at least be cited in this manuscript.

[Response]: We have introduced a new paragraph into the revised paper, the paragraph 3.6 Quantum enhancement, in which the references suggested by reviewer has been discussed.

There are a lot of abbreviations in the manuscript. Moreover, some of them are mentioned in the text only once (MARS, FGL, FFPE), some are decoding several times (ExM, SRS, hsSRS, ALS), and some are given without abbreviation meaning (DNA, CRS). If this does not contradict the rules of the journal, then I would suggest that the authors provide a definition of all abbreviations at the end of the manuscript text before the list of references.

[Response]: We have given a definition of all abbreviations inside the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank the authors for carefully revising the article and patiently responding to my questions and concerns. It is recommended that the article be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Peer Review File V2:

Title: Stimulated Raman Scattering Microscopy: a review

Manuscript ID: photonics-2854219

Type of manuscript: Review

Response to Reviewers’ Comments:

Reviewer #2

Thank the authors for carefully revising the article and patiently responding to my questions and concerns. It is recommended that the article be accepted for publication.

[Response]: We would like to thank again the reviewer for the constructive comments and the overall positive evaluation.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf