Influence of Frustration Effects on the Critical Current of DC SQUID
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Unfortunately, the article contains major flaws regarding the presentation of the results.My comments are in the attached file.
Nevertheless, these shortcomings do not reduce the scientific significance of the article.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reply to Comments of first reviewer
Thank you for your useful comments. I take into account all your suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Influence of frustration effects on the critical current of SQUID” by Askerzade is difficult to read because of the poor English and poor formatting. I would suggest that the author work with a good English speaker to fix the grammar and someone who knows Latex to fix the formatting before the manuscript is reviewed again. It was too difficult to follow the calculation, particularly with the confusing introduction.
Just as an example, in Equation 8, a new current shows up, I_c3, and there is no explanation of what that current is. The different channels (the word Channel is not defined either) need to be defined, and/or I_c3 should be included in Fig. 1.
I also noticed that the figures are fuzzy, and that problem needs to be fixed too.
See the first comment
Author Response
Reply to Comments of second reviewer.
Thank you for your useful comments.
Comment 1: The manuscript “Influence of frustration effects on the critical current of SQUID” by Askerzade is difficult to read because of the poor English and poor formatting. I would suggest that the author work with a good English speaker to fix the grammar and someone who knows Latex to fix the formatting before the manuscript is reviewed again. It was too difficult to follow the calculation, particularly with the confusing introduction.
Reply: Firstly I would like to note I am not native English speaker. However, I am using grammarly.com for correction mistakes. And usually it was enough for accepting my papers. Of course in some journals there is technical language assistants, which also help improve final version. In my previous paper on CM, I’ve got such support. I also introduce some corrections for the detalization any moments mentioned in your comments and calculations, which colored by red.
In respect of using Latex I agree with your comments. After exclusion of Math Equation from Word Editor, it is hard using it in writing of theoretrical papers. However,generally in my screen it seems no so bad. After uploading of source files to the system there is some strange transformation. I think that it will be solved by technical assist of Editorial Office.
Comment 2: Just as an example, in Equation 8, a new current shows up, I_c3, and there is no explanation of what that current is. The different channels (the word Channel is not defined either) need to be defined, and/or I_c3 should be included in Fig. 1.
Reply: Below I present explanation in this respect. This figure describe SB/MB junction structure and taken from my before publication LTP Low Temperature Physics/Fizika Nizkikh Temperatur, 2021, vol. 47, No. 4. In order to to avoid duplication, in this manuscript I add ‘The critical currents in the different channels in Eq. (8) is proportional to the product of amplitude of wave functions above , i.e. .’
Comment 3: I also noticed that the figures are fuzzy, and that problem needs to be fixed too.
Reply: After some manipulation problem is solved mainly.
Best wishes,
Iman Askerzade
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
