Structure–Property Relationships for Weak Ferromagnetic Perovskites

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author presented a very interesting review article entitled “Structure-property relationships for weak-ferromagnetic perovskites”. The manuscript reads well and has been presented in an appropriate way. Hence, I am recommending for publication in “Magnetochemistry”. Just few minor comments: 1. The title looks very general to the reader but author only discussed about FeO6 octahedral system. 2. Author demonstrated the contribution of the DM coupling into effective magnetic anisotropy in orthoferrites. I would expect to discuss more on this section.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank the Reviewer 1 for the analysis of the work and useful comments. Below I give a detailed point-by-point response to the criticism and recommendations of the Reviewer.

Reviewer 1

1. The title looks very general to the reader but author only discussed about FeO6 octahedral system.

Reply

Despite the fact that in this work we consider rare earth orthoferrites, the model approach we are developing goes far beyond the scope of only orthoferrites. Corresponding phrases are introduced in the Introduction and Summary.

Reviewer 1

2. Author demonstrated the contribution of the DM coupling into effective magnetic anisotropy in orthoferrites. I would expect to discuss more on this section.

Reply

At the end of Section 4, we added a discussion of the features of the antisymmetric Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction as a source of magnetic anisotropy and introduced an additional citation (Ref. [36]).

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor,

I found the manuscript well organised but admittedly my expertise lies in different fields. While the scientific presentation makes sense and the Author shows complete control of the subject I am afraid the article is too technical for me to be able to provide a full and informative report. 

I would recommend the Author rethink part of the manuscript -- especially the initial part and provide the reader with the tools and the definition necessary to enter this field. Clearly, the Author has a long-standing experience in the field and apparently, some of the symbols and definitions appear standard in the community. However, some of them might be unfamiliar to an unexperienced reader. 

 

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank the Reviewer 2 for the analysis of our work and many useful comments. I feel greatly encouraged by his statement “The paper is certainly of interest to the community and of high value to the Readers”. Below I give a detailed point-by-point response to the criticisms and recommendations of the Reviewer.

Reviewer 2

1. Maybe the introduction might be slightly enriched in references.

Reply

We have added two new references to the Introduction, Refs. [2,3].

Reviewer 2

2. Page 2, eq. 1: what are u_j and R_i(n) – the symbols might be explained.
3. Page 3, eq. (4): the symbol S (spin quantum number) might be explained. Also, S_i might be explained.
4. Page 4, eq. 7: the notation like I(e_gt_2g) or I_egt2g should be unified throughout the paper – either symbols in bracket or in lower index.
5. Page 5: also the notation I_CrCr I(CrCr) (the same for ΔI) might be unified throughout the text.
6. Page 6, Fig. 3: some legend should be added to explain the meaning of individual curves in the plot.
7. Page 7, before eq. 17: what is ξ?
8. Page 8, eq. 22: it seems that some signs like +/- are missing between the lines of the multi-line equation.
9. Page 8, eq.23: the symbols like d_x(12) could be explained.
10. Page 12, line 232: the angle φ could be explained, maybe also in some schematic drawing.
11. Page 21: the tensor epsilon seems to be denoted with the mathematical symbol of set membership.
12. Page 22, figure 9: the quantity plotted should be explained (with unit) for vertical axis.
13. Page 24, line 457: maybe Δn_ij should be the difference of n_i and n_j?
14. The names of trigonometric functions are unnecessarily written in italics.

Reply

All these comments have been taken into account. Corresponding corrections and clarifications have been made to the text. Moreover, these comments stimulated a more attentive reading of the manuscript with the introduction of both a number of technical corrections and fragments of the text with a more detailed explanation of individual issues.

Reviewer 3 Report

The review paper presents a complete theoretical overview of the magnetic properties  of the rare-earth orthoferrites RFeO₃. It focuses on the importance of DM interaction and its characteristic vector. It is consistent, thorough and detailed, the presentation is clear and convincing. It exploits extensively the underlying symmetry and its relations to the model. The paper is certainly of interest to the community and of high value to the Readers.

I recommend it for publication in Magnetochemistry after the Author gives consideration to the minor points listed below. My remarks concern only some detailed aspects of presentation:

1. Maybe the introduction might be slightly enriched in references.
2. Page 2, eq. 1: what are u_j and R_i(n) – the symbols might be explained.
3. Page 3, eq. (4): the symbol S (spin quantum number) might be explained. Also, S_i might be explained.
4. Page 4, eq. 7: the notation like I(e_gt_2g) or I_egt2g should be unified throughout the paper – either symbols in bracket or in lower index.
5. Page 5: also the notation I_CrCr vs. I(CrCr) (the same for ΔI) might be unified throughout the text.
6. Page 6, Fig. 3: some legend should be added to explain the meaning of individual curves in the plot.
7. Page 7, before eq. 17: what is ξ?
8. Page 8, eq. 22: it seems that some signs like +/- are missing between the lines of the multi-line equation.
9. Page 8, eq.23: the symbols like d_x(12) could be explained.
10. Page 12, line 232: the angle φ could be explained, maybe also in some schematic drawing.
11. Page 21: the tensor epsilon seems to be denoted with the mathematical symbol of set membership.
12. Page 22, figure 9: the quantity plotted should be explained (with unit) for vertical axis.
13. Page 24, line 457: maybe Δn_ij should be the difference of n_i and n_j?
14. The names of trigonometric functions are unnecessarily written in italics.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank the Reviewer 3 for reading the manuscript and valuable comments.  Below I give a response to his/her comment.

Reviewer 2

I would recommend the Author rethink part of the manuscript -- especially the initial part and provide the reader with the tools and the definition necessary to enter this field. Clearly, the Author has a long-standing experience in the field and apparently, some of the symbols and definitions appear standard in the community. However, some of them might be unfamiliar to an unexperienced reader.

Reply

 Unfortunately, in any case, such articles are in one way or another targeted at a very definite part of the "physico-chemical" community. I hope that the changes I made to the revised manuscript will lead to an " enlargement" of the audience of readers.