A Two-Plane Proton Radiography System Using ATLAS IBL Pixel-Detector Modules
, Claus Maximillian Bäcker 2,3,4, Johannes Esser 1,2,3,4, Alina Hild 1, Marco Iampieri 1, Ann-Kristin Lüvelsmeyer 1,2,3,4, Annsofie Tappe 1, Helen Thews 1, Kevin Kröninger 1 and Jens Weingarten 1Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll comments and suggestion can be found in the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
See the attached file
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an excellent article that exceeds the standards of most papers. It describes a new way of doing medical physics with ATLAS instrumentation. It describes tests of using the instrumentation with the beam in West Germany and the results of the tests with conversions to various equivalent units.
I would appreciate if the authors just briefly define phantoms. This is a generic Instruments journal that HEP uses and a medical physics term might be a bit outside the normal reader.
Author Response
Comment: I would appreciate if the authors just briefly define phantoms. This is a generic Instruments journal that HEP uses and a medical physics term might be a bit outside the normal reader.
Response: We have added lines 160–162 on page 5 to include a definition of the term 'phantom'.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWhile the discussion on dose optimization and WET in response to Question 2 remains somewhat general, and the response to Question 3 is based on unpublished data—which, understandably, does not yet constitute robust evidence, I find the authors’ overall responses and the corresponding revisions to be satisfactory. Ideally, a brief presentation of the simulation study results would further strengthen the manuscript.
In my view, the manuscript has been meaningfully improved, and the authors have addressed the primary concerns raised. Although there are two minor language issues remaining, they do not impact the scientific clarity of the work.
Specific comments:
Page 4, lines 133-134: Replace “100 µm thick detector and 50 µm thick detector” with “100 µm-thick detector and 50 µm-thick detector”. Hyphen should be added for correctness and consistency in scientific writing.
Page 4, line 139: Add “an” before “initial kinetic energy”: “Absorber thickness and an initial kinetic energy of...”
Page 17, line 514: Replace “flat panel” with “flat-panel”.
Author Response
While the discussion on dose optimization and WET in response to Question 2 remains somewhat general, and the response to Question 3 is based on unpublished data—which, understandably, does not yet constitute robust evidence, I find the authors’ overall responses and the corresponding revisions to be satisfactory. Ideally, a brief presentation of the simulation study results would further strengthen the manuscript.
Response:
- We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. However, in our view, even a brief presentation of the simulation study results would exceed the scope and objectives of the present manuscript.
In my view, the manuscript has been meaningfully improved, and the authors have addressed the primary concerns raised. Although there are two minor language issues remaining, they do not impact the scientific clarity of the work.
Specific comments:
Page 4, lines 133-134: Replace “100 µm thick detector and 50 µm thick detector” with “100 µm-thick detector and 50 µm-thick detector”. Hyphen should be added for correctness and consistency in scientific writing.
Page 4, line 139: Add “an” before “initial kinetic energy”: “Absorber thickness and an initial kinetic energy of...”
Page 17, line 514: Replace “flat panel” with “flat-panel”.
- The respective lines have been amended.
