First Proof - Answer to questions

[ncclementi]

Q1:

While the online version of figures 4, 5 and 11 will be in colour, we have been instructed to print the figures in black and white. Please note that if you have explicitly referred to colour in the caption this may affect the legibility of the figures in print.

A1:

• Figure 4 does not mention color in the captions, but it refers to the color on the text in page 9 line 464, and 466

Suggested modification for line 464 original: "located at ≈10.6μm is much diminished in the green curve for both the E//b the E//a plots." replacement: "located at ≈10.6μm is much diminished in the green curve ("Uni+round") for both the E//b the E//a plots."

Suggested modification for line 466 original: "we show how our results (green curve in figure 4)" replacement: "we show how our results ("Uni + round" in figure 4)"

• Figure 5 mentions color in the caption, we can replace the color for the labels. In the caption replace: (green line) for (PyGBe) (orange line) for (Rockstuhl)

• Figure 11: They changed the labels of the figure to a wrong name. They put "ellis experiments" while the original is "Ellis simulations". This label should not change, please fix!! Also in page 14 line 740 the "(green curve)" note refers to Ellis paper. Suggested fix for page 14 line 740: original: "Ellis et al. on fig. 2 of their paper (green curve), we obtain figure 11." replacement: "Ellis et al. on fig. 2 (green curve of their paper), we obtain figure 11"

Q2:

Please provide author(s) initials and year details for the private communication.

A2:

On page 7, the text says "private communication from the authors of Ellis et al. [17]"—the reference to a private communication on page 11 refers to the same instance.

Modify p.11, line 557 to "private communication (CTE & JGT, 2019)."

Q3:

Figures 6 and 7 have been renumbered in order to maintain sequential order. Please check and confirm

A3:

It is correct.

Q4

Please provide the significance of bold values in table 1.

A4:

"The wavelengths in bold correspond to the lowest mode that is not a longitudinal one." -- ADD to caption. Important note: In page 11 line 571 the link to Table one that shows as (table 1), does not properly redirect to Table 1, please fix

Q5:

Please provide the page range for reference [7].

A5

Reference number 7 is "Chang AC, Li P. 2018 Is economics research replicable? Sixty published papers from thirteen journals say ‘often not’. Crit. Finance Rev. 7. (doi:10.1561/104.00000053). Available as preprint SSRN 2669564."

@labarba You cited this paper, would you be able to provide this information

Q6:

Please provide complete details for reference [28].

A6:

The problem comes in the modification introduced by the editors, in page 16 lines 828-829 it says: "The file sets for reproducing the figures for the validation and replication of results from Ellis et al. [28] are archived in Zenodo at 10.5281/zenodo.3962797 [29]." The assignment of reference [28] is a mistake, it should be [17]

ADDITIONAL MODIFICATION:

Ref 27 has a typo, "alidation" should be "validation" please modify.

[labarba]

Fig. 6 (used to be Fig. 7) -- the size of the figure has been reduced to make space for text at the bottom of the page. This makes the plots less readable. Please resize as originally intended.

[labarba]

Ref. [7] is Forthcoming: 01 Oct 2021. It does not have a page number range. https://doi.org/10.1561/104.00000053

[ncclementi]

Second round of proof:

@labarba They omit some of the changes, we need to request a fix on the following points.

Note: Page numbers are from the previous proof

1. Page 14, Line 740: original: "Ellis et al. on fig. 2 of their paper (green curve), we obtain figure 11." replacement: "Ellis et al. on fig. 2 (green curve on their paper), we obtain figure 11”

This replacement was done in a way that the new sentence sounds redundant, they replace it to: "Ellis et al. on fig. 2 of their paper (green curve on their paper), we obtain figure 11."

2. Page 16, line 829: the link is broken, it points to https://doi.org/3962797/zenodo.3962791 when it should point to https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3962797

The link works, but it is in the long form, if we want to be consistent, we should modify it to the short version.

3. Page 18, Line 909–911: please adjust as follows: “Validation has been a hard goal to achieve for our solver since the field does not have benchmarks that are meant to be used for this purpose. Multiple times, we encountered experimental results that we asprired to use for validation, but…” (changes in bold).

• They did not change the sentence, maybe suggesting changes in bold, did not work. We should request a change again.
• typo : asprired ---> aspired

ADDITIONAL CHANGE: Whenever we mention the repo we point to https://github.com/barbagroup/pygbe but it should be https://github.com/pygbe/pygbe . We want to avoid redirects since we can. In the whole article change. https://github.com/barbagroup/pygbe ----> https://github.com/pygbe/pygbe

[ncclementi]

New errors on latest proof

@labarba this one is the only error I caught in the latest email. I've checked and they fixed the previous problems.

• On the first page they only put LB Orcid ID. They should add NC : 0000-0002-0575-5520

• In page 9 the title "Replication of results from Ellis et al. [17], and validation" is missing the link reference, [17] does not have a link to the reference and it should. Please add the link

• In page 11 the title "Replication of figure S4 in the supplementary materials of Ellis et al. [17]" is missing the link reference, [17] does not have a link to the reference and it should. Please add the link

• In pag 14 Where it says " Figure 2a of Ellis et al. presents measured and simulated reflectances of SiC pillar arrays with a 500-nm gap." Figure2 is hyperref and it should not be, please remove.