Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

On Line 184, the equation should be typed, rather than a figure.

 

On Line 225, the paragraph consists of only one sentence, which should be connected with the next paragraph.

 

Figure 3 is somewhat vague, and a clear one should be used for ease of viewing.

 

Carefully check the end of the explanation of Figure 3.

 

After Section 3.8, Sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 come. Where is Section 3.9? And locations of Sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 hold right on the page.

 

Some new imaging processing techniques may help to address the challenges, e.g., Injected infrared and visible image fusion via L1 decomposition model and guided filtering, IEEE TCI; Multi-focus image fusion based on fractional order derivative and closed image matting, ISA Transactions. They are suggested to be discussed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Carefully check the end of the explanation of Figure 3.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: tomography-2650998

Title: High-resolution phase-contrast tomography on human collagenous tissues: a comprehensive review

Submitted to: Tomography

 

Authors thank the reviewers for their suggestions to improve the quality of the review and their time to carefully check the manuscript.

In the following, reviewer comments are reported in italic in the form Rn.m, where n is the reviewer number and m the number of the comment. The authors responses are reported in normal character in the form An.m.

In the manuscript each modification has been highlighted in yellow.

 

A list of main modifications of the manuscript is reported here:

• Sections 2 and 4 have been enriched with reviewers suggestions;
• Figure 3 has been substituted;
• Section 3.8 and its subsections have been fixed.

Another accurate reading of the manuscript, to improve the language and to better transmit the presented concepts, was carried out. We are convinced now that the overall quality of the manuscript is improved, for the reader’s benefits and for the sake of precision.

 

Reviewer 1

R1.1: On Line 184, the equation should be typed, rather than a figure.

A1.1: The equation is now typed as text, as suggested. 

R1.2: On Line 225, the paragraph consists of only one sentence, which should be connected with the next paragraph.

A1.2: The  two paragraphs are now connected.

R1.3: Figure 3 is somewhat vague, and a clear one should be used for ease of viewing. Carefully check the end of the explanation of Figure 3.

A1.3: A new picture has been selected from the same paper. The caption has been modified accordingly.

R1.4: After Section 3.8, Sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 come. Where is Section 3.9? And locations of Sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 hold right on the page.

A1.4: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. It was a typing error as Sections 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 should have read 3.8.1 and 3.8.2. Also their position on the page is now correct. 

R1.5: Some new imaging processing techniques may help to address the challenges, e.g., Injected infrared and visible image fusion via L1 decomposition model and guided filtering, IEEE TCI; Multi-focus image fusion based on fractional order derivative and closed image matting, ISA Transactions. They are suggested to be discussed.

A1.5: New image processing techniques would indeed improve the output quality of PhC-microCT images. A paragraph discussing the suggested ones has been added in section 4.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have found this manuscript as a very comprehensive review of the topic and can result of interest for the community. Congrats to the authors.

The abstract is clear and complete, as well as Introduction, which puts the reader in the right context, with easy explanations. Developed cases are well explained and well structured, with enough examples and references. Some pictures can be improved. Final remarks are good.

I recommend the manuscript for publication after a few minor modifications, cited in the following:

- Figure 1: I suggest to improve the figure, or do it bigger, as some labels are not well readable. In addition, in the text (line 107) it is mentioned the monochromator crystal preceding the sample. Such item is not depicted in the figure, which is indeed of high importance in the method.

- Section 2, overall: it might be worth mentioning, at some point, which kind of detectors are more commonly used in the different setups presented.

- Figure 3: please consider to improve the quality of the figure, mainly e) and f), since labels are not readable. In addition, is the end of the caption incomplete, maybe?

- Figure 4 and Figure 5: both captions do not match in format with other captions. Please fix that format issue.

- Section 3.8: from line 556 and on, please fix the format issue, since the identation is not correct, as well as section numbering. Indeed, I have the feeling that some text is missing.

- Line 594: is it 2 mum per voxel, or 2.45 mum per voxel instead, as stated in the figure caption (line 600). Numbers do not match.

Author Response

Response to reviewer

 

Manuscript ID: tomography-2650998

Title: High-resolution phase-contrast tomography on human collagenous tissues: a comprehensive review

Submitted to: Tomography

 

Authors thank the reviewers for their suggestions to improve the quality of the review and their time to carefully check the manuscript.

In the following, reviewer comments are reported in italic in the form Rn.m, where n is the reviewer number and m the number of the comment. The authors responses are reported in normal character in the form An.m.

In the manuscript each modification has been highlighted in yellow.

 

A list of main modifications of the manuscript is reported here:

• Sections 2 and 4 have been enriched with reviewers suggestions;
• Figure 3 has been substituted;
• Section 3.8 and its subsections have been fixed.

Another accurate reading of the manuscript, to improve the language and to better transmit the presented concepts, was carried out. We are convinced now that the overall quality of the manuscript is improved, for the reader’s benefits and for the sake of precision.

 

Reviewer 2

I have found this manuscript as a very comprehensive review of the topic and can result of interest for the community. Congrats to the authors.

The abstract is clear and complete, as well as Introduction, which puts the reader in the right context, with easy explanations. Developed cases are well explained and well structured, with enough examples and references. Some pictures can be improved. Final remarks are good.

I recommend the manuscript for publication after a few minor modifications, cited in the following:

R2.1: Figure 1: I suggest to improve the figure, or do it bigger, as some labels are not well readable. In addition, in the text (line 107) it is mentioned the monochromator crystal preceding the sample. Such item is not depicted in the figure, which is indeed of high importance in the method.

A2.1: Figure 1a has been modified adding the missing monochromator in the correct position. Its dimension has been increased for easier reading.

R2.2: Section 2, overall: it might be worth mentioning, at some point, which kind of detectors are more commonly used in the different setups presented.

A2.2: Some information about  the most commonly used detectors have been added in each paragraph of Section 2. It is beyond authors scope to detail the detectors choice for each setup, but of course some piece of information are useful for readers with different backgrounds.

R2.3: Figure 3: please consider to improve the quality of the figure, mainly e) and f), since labels are not readable. In addition, is the end of the caption incomplete, maybe?

A2.3: Figure 3 has been substituted with another figure from the same paper. Also its caption is now more complete.

R2.4: Figure 4 and Figure 5: both captions do not match in format with other captions. Please fix that format issue.

A2.4: the format issue has been addressed and fixed.

R2.5: Section 3.8: from line 556 and on, please fix the format issue, since the indentation is not correct, as well as section numbering. Indeed, I have the feeling that some text is missing.

A2.5: Fortunately, no text was missing in the manuscript. There were a typing error and indentation error, which were corrected.

R2.6: Line 594: is it 2 mum per voxel, or 2.45 mum per voxel instead, as stated in the figure caption (line 600). Numbers do not match.

A2.6: The correct value for voxel size has been reported in the text as well, as suggested.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My concerns in last round have been well addressed. The revised paper is satisfactory.