Review of the Fundamental Measurement Modalities in Photoacoustic Mechanical Imaging
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe review seems to only review 1 paper under each measurement modality, while with some detail, but doesn't actually explore the recent progress in the field. The papers reviewed seem to be from 2016-2020 and are seminal papers. If so, the scope of the article needs to be changed. Maybe change name of article to Review of the fundamental measurment modalities in photoacoustic mechanical imaging.
In the current form, the paper doesn't fully summarize recent research progress.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Quality of english is good - some sentences need rephrasing.
The introduction summary is too flowerly so can be toned down a bit.
Notes added as comments to the pdf and uploaded.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn the manuscript titled "Research progress in photoacoustic mechanical imaging," the authors review photoacoustic mechanical imaging techniques to measure elasticity, viscosity, or viscoelasticity. This field is gaining attention in photoacoustic imaging, so it is worthwhile to introduce it. This review paper is well organized but the recent papers are not featured despite a large publication. This review paper is well organized, but recent papers have not been introduced despite their large publications. The reviewer recommends to add more recent papers to be published.
Comments
1. It would be better to explain the measurement principles in more detail for each section.
2. Each section should contain recent papers.
3. Then, it would be helpful for readers to add a table summarizing the main features of each paper.
4. In the last paragraph of section 2.1, the reviewer does not understand why the authors mentioned "In addition, PACT ~ measurements." This sentence does not connect naturally with the preceding and following sentences.
5. In Conclusion and Outlook, it would be better to suggest some specific solutions or directions to address the current limitations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRevised version addresses almost all aspects of initial review.
Minor edits for english and formating added.
Thorough revision that delves into different methods nicely!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer #1:
Revised version addresses almost all aspects of initial review.
Minor edits for english and formating added.
Thorough revision that delves into different methods nicely!
Response: Many thanks for your comments on the manuscript. We have edited the language, added the reference and changed the format of the figure as suggested. We appreciate that the article has been greatly improved under your guidance!
We sincerely hope that you will consider the publication of this article.
