A Library of 77 Multibody Solar and Extrasolar Subsystems—A Review of Their Dynamical Properties, Global Mean-Motion Resonances, and the Landau-Damped Mean Tidal Fields
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMajor Comments:
-
The introduction section is missing the necessary background, for example, the concept of global MMR and LR, as well as their relationship. How landau damping erases the mean tidal field needs some explanation to let the readers quickly catch this article. Some quantitative analysis on the time scale of each effect should be included as well.
-
Please add the explanation of some key concepts like principle interior/exterior MMRs.
-
The modeling methods you adopted in this article are complicated and involve different patterns to fit as well as some exceptions, I think you need to provide some justification of this approach since some steps look quite subjective.
-
Please elaborate how the empirical wavelength is determined.
-
In figure 19, I see some points above the lambda = lambda_L line, does this conflict with the assumption that lambda <= lambda_L?
Minor Comments:
-
Please explain the unit “Mm”.
-
Orbital parameters such as semi-major axis, mass and period in the tables should include error margins.
-
Figures like Fig 1-18 might need error margins for the position of each object, and it’s better to include the name of corresponding objects somewhere. The caption of these figures can be more detailed.
-
The introduction should explicitly state how this study improved upon previous work and the key contribution.
-
Define the critical orbital period.
-
Where does the range 2 mau come from, this number shows up several times in this paper but is not well explained. Does it have significant physical meaning?
-
There are too many similar tables/figures for various systems, consider a more clear way the demonstrate them.
Author Response
Response is attached as a PDF file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis a comprehensive review and a relevant contribution to the study of planetary systems architecture. A brief summary section with the most relevant generic results would benefit the readers. The comparison of the results with models of planetary formation and evolution could be somewhat expanded.
Author Response
Response is attached as a PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI believe that the current status of the article could significantly benefit from a reorganization of its content which should highlight the scope of the work, the data set that is used in the investigation and the methods used to analyze the data. A possible structure might look like:
* Introduction with context and purpose of the paper
* Data set used in the investigation
* Model that is fitted to the data
* Analysis procedure
* Results
* Discussion:
* main findings as stated in the purpose of the paper
* new open findings
* relation with other work
* Appendix: Description of the library
I would suggest to maintain the same choice of placing the captions either above or below the figures and tables throughout the paper.
Author Response
Response is attached as a PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article cannot be accepted for publication in this form.
I am totally confused by this article. It is a meaningless text of scientific terms. It is impossible to understand what is written.
Two of the authors (Silas Laycock, D Kazanas) are experts in the field of Black holes, Neutron stars, White dwarfs, X-ray astronomy. What they have to do with this article is not clear at all.
The style of writing of their papers is completely different from the style of this paper.
Author Response
Response is attached as a PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors summarized the orbital configurations of 77 planetary and satellite subsystems and compiled the results into a repository, which also includes over 60 orbital systems of exoplanets. The summary is quite comprehensive and logically sound, providing valuable references for research on orbital models of both solar system and exoplanetary systems. It is particularly commendable that the author organized the collected data into a repository and made it open-source, which will greatly benefit future research.
Comments:
- Figures 1 to 5: Consider reformatting these figures. Why are there black underlines between them? This is not a conventional practice in scientific papers. Additionally, the captions are too brief and should be expanded appropriately.
- Figures 6 to 10 and Figures 11 to 18: Similar issues apply—consider improving their layout and caption descriptions.
- Language Style: Some paragraphs in the manuscript appear to have been polished by AI (e.g., ChatGPT). The author should minimize such AI-assisted phrasing and ensure a more natural academic writing style.
- Section 5 (Summary): Currently, this section only provides a table, which is insufficient. The author should include appropriate descriptions, elaborate on the necessity of this review, potential future applications, and provide insights into the expected developments and recommendations for future research in this field.
Author Response
Response is attached as a PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed satisfactorily the issues raised in my previous report and have made the appropriate changes to revised the manuscript.
Author Response
Letter is attached in a PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThanks for your revision.
Author Response
Letter is attached in a PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors provided fairly extended and comprehensive responses to the comments.
One of the key comments concerned the fact that the article positioned as “Type - Review” is not a review as such, it has a completely different style. Nevertheless, it is desirable to present the abstract and introduction in such a way that they can be understood by a wide range of specialists. For example, the first number 77 should be explained in more detail, why there is no 76 or 78, how it relates to earlier studies, etc ...
The reviewer removes his objections regarding the possibility of publishing the submitted work, possible changes in the abstract and introduction are left to the authors' discretion.
Author Response
Letter is attached in a PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors responded to my queries in detail and can be published as it.
Author Response
Letter is attached in a PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have responded to all comments. The article may be accepted for publication.
