I think if EMO is the detectors name then a better title would be "The Extreme Matter Observatory: A high-frequency gravitational-wave interferometer". I also don't like in the paper where you have "our EMO" or "an EMO", I prefer almost always "the EMO". Also in Fig 1 caption "of EMO". Even if you don't agree with me that "the EMO" is the best, then you should at least be consistent.
In the abstract, this line reads funny. "These will provide clues to the extremely hot post-merger environment. These signature of nuclear" I suggest changing it to something like "These remnants will provide clues to the extremely hot post-merger environment. The signature of nuclear"
Line 16 - has a unnecessary space before a comma and also this part needs an A+ reference and the aLIGO paper reference. Having the aLIGO paper referenced is one of the P&P requirements.
Line 137 - Speed meters and Sagnac style needs references.
Table 1 caption needs explanation of acronyms in the table.
Line 277 - Advanced LIGO should be aLIGO.
Line 335 - "aVirgo". This is the first time the Virgo detector is mentioned in the paper. It should be referenced when it first appears and maybe mentioned earlier like in the introduction.
Fig 2 - I would include the red signal in the legend. Also still has OzHF in legend.
Line 380 - All through the paper you switch between equation of state and EOS and never define EOS.
Line 389 - I don't understand what is a fluffy neutron star.
Line 403 - You say where A+ is located, but not EMO.
"The inclusion of an EMO provides an approximately 50% improvement in the accuracy with which the equation of state can be measured". I wouldn't think that from looking at Figure 3. A+ and EMO looks better than A+ alone, but not loads better.
With the BayesWave reconstruction, why should I care about having better phase information about the signal?
Fig 5 still has OzHF in the caption.
I think the increased detection rate is one of the best results in the deliverables section and I would highlight it more in the abstract and intro. Also, the science deliverables are also not mentioned at all in the conclusion.
I think if EMO is the detectors name then a better title would be "The Extreme Matter Observatory: A high-frequency gravitational-wave interferometer". I also don't like in the paper where you have "our EMO" or "an EMO", I prefer almost always "the EMO". Also in Fig 1 caption "of EMO". Even if you don't agree with me that "the EMO" is the best, then you should at least be consistent.
In the abstract, this line reads funny. "These will provide clues to the extremely hot post-merger environment. These signature of nuclear" I suggest changing it to something like "These remnants will provide clues to the extremely hot post-merger environment. The signature of nuclear"
Line 16 - has a unnecessary space before a comma and also this part needs an A+ reference and the aLIGO paper reference. Having the aLIGO paper referenced is one of the P&P requirements.
Line 137 - Speed meters and Sagnac style needs references.
Table 1 caption needs explanation of acronyms in the table.
Line 277 - Advanced LIGO should be aLIGO.
Line 335 - "aVirgo". This is the first time the Virgo detector is mentioned in the paper. It should be referenced when it first appears and maybe mentioned earlier like in the introduction.
Fig 2 - I would include the red signal in the legend. Also still has OzHF in legend.
Line 380 - All through the paper you switch between equation of state and EOS and never define EOS.
Line 389 - I don't understand what is a fluffy neutron star.
Line 403 - You say where A+ is located, but not EMO.
"The inclusion of an EMO provides an approximately 50% improvement in the accuracy with which the equation of state can be measured". I wouldn't think that from looking at Figure 3. A+ and EMO looks better than A+ alone, but not loads better.
With the BayesWave reconstruction, why should I care about having better phase information about the signal?
Fig 5 still has OzHF in the caption.
I think the increased detection rate is one of the best results in the deliverables section and I would highlight it more in the abstract and intro. Also, the science deliverables are also not mentioned at all in the conclusion.
Line 557 reads funny.