Kinetics of Domain Structure in Co/Pt/Co Ultrathin Films with Ferromagnetic Interlayer Exchange Interaction: Dependence on Interlayer Thickness

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper was well-written and found an interesting critical interlayer thickness to separate two principal patterns of domain behavior including interlayer correlations and domain wall mobility. Some minor comments are as follows:

1.      How about the effects of the angle of the wedge-shaped layered structure, as shown in Fig.1, on the experimental results?

2.      It is required to illustrate the phenomena and meaning of “M_H” and “M_S”, as shown in Fig.1, in the context.

3.      It is required to illustrate the phenomena and meaning of “DW_H” and “DW_S”, as shown in Fig.4, in the context.

4.      What is the “established position of the domain wall” and its meaning in Fig. 4?

5.      The critical interlayer thickness t_cr =5.5nm found in this study is unique? or it is dependent on the geometry, size, and materials of layered structures?

6.      Typing error: an redundant bracket appears at the right side of Eq.(7).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript number: magnetism-1776312

The present paper is interesting. The reported results are reliable and seem to be correct. Thus, I recommend the paper for publication in Magnetism-MDPI after the authors perform some minor points:

1)  The title is not very suggestive. I recommend revising it.

2)  The paper contains some grammatical errors and typo-mistakes that should be corrected.

3)  The Abstract part should be improved. Abstract should clearly inform the important findings in the present study. Also, it should contain some qualitative and quantitative results.

4)  The introduction part can be further improved. The authors are suggested to include recent references in the introduction part.

5) It is recommended to perform magnetic force microscopy (MFM) measurements.

6)  Domain wall roughness should be presented.

7) The conclusion part should be more concise.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised paper has been improved. I think that it can be now accepted for publication.