Materials and Life Science Experimental Facility (MLF) at the Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex II: Neutron Scattering Instruments
, Ryoichi Kajimoto 1, Seiko Ohira-Kawamura 1, Sanghyun Lee 1,2, Tatsuro Oda 7, Atsushi Takahara 11,12, Norifumi L. Yamada 1,2,3, add
Show full author list
Jaime Fernandez-Baca
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper will be of broad interest and is publishable, almost as is. But I do have the following suggestions for improvements:
1. The paper would benefit from proof reading by a native English speaker to tidy up the grammar (e.g. use or otherwise of definite and indefinite articles), throughout the article, and especially the abstract.
2. The author affiliations could be tidied up and shortened by condensing institutions 1, 5, 8, 13, 17 and 20 into a single affiliation “Materials & Life Sciences Division, J-PARC,…” The external reader neither cares about nor needs to know the microscopic bureaucratic structure of J-PARC.
3. I am somewhat surprised that Dr. Masatoshi Arai is not included as an author (or even acknowledged), as he led the team that installed most, if not all, of these instruments.
4. On line 98, change “decupler” to “decoupler”, and “blew out” to “surpassed”
5. Throughout the article, change “monochromatize” to “monochromate”
6. In Table 1, it would be very helpful to include the literature references for each of the instruments in the Table, as an extra column. For some instruments, these are already in the following text.
7. I note that just over half of the instruments have an individual table of specifications. It would be good if more of them could (i.e. 4SEASONS, DNA, PLANET, HRC, SENJU and POLANO). Ideally, all should include the Q (or d-spacing) and/or energy-transfer ranges, and resolutions, as well as sample/beam sizes and typical measurement times (at stated source power – say, 300kW). The table for AMATERAS (Table 2) is a good model for the others. I also note that the Table 7 (SOFIA) is very different in style and content to the others. Maybe Table 7 should be retained, and an additional one more in keeping with the other instruments included as well.
8. Of the three introductions to the instrument groups (Inelastic, Crystal Structure and Nanostructure), the introduction to the Crystal Structure Group on lines 539 to 560 is quite dense and difficult to read. The Figure (12) is very useful, but I would suggest that this section be rewritten more in the style of the other two groups.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Referees,
We would like to thank referees for their considering our manuscript. We appreciate referees' suggestions, which are really helpful to us in our improving the manuscript. We completely revised our manuscript and, especially we have had professional English editing services to improve English writing in the manuscript.
Details of changes in our manuscript are as follows.
0. We have changed the title of the article to "Materials and Life Science Experimental Facility 3 (MLF) at J‐PARC. II―Neutron Scattering Instruments." Main reason is the suggestion from a English editing service's comment.
1. In accordance with a comment from both referees, we have had professional English editing services to improve English writing in the manuscript. As a result, many of parts of the text have been changed. Especially, we rewrite 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the introduction was re-written, since this part was too confusing.
2. In accordance with a comment from referee#1, the introduction of the Crystal Structure Group was revised.
3. In accordance with a comment from referee#1, we reconsidered the list of affiliations of authors. We ignored small structure of the organizations, and reduced the number of listed affiliations from 20 to 15.
4. In accordance with a comment from referee#1, we added tables describing characteristic parameters of the instruments for BL01, 02, 06, 09, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 21 and 23.
5. In accordance with a comment from referee#1, we added references in the list of instruments in page 4 and the table in page 5. We also changed the order of the list in page 4 in concert with the order of appearing in the main text of each sub-sections.
6. In accordance with a comment from referee#1, we added acknowledgments to Prof. Masa Arai and other past and present Division Heads of MLF.
7. We changed names of BL05, 09, 11, 15, 17 and 18. It was suggested by professional English editing services and was the results of our discussion.
8. We found errors in the years of starting operations of BL11 and 15 and corrected them from 2010 to 2011.
9. There are several confusing expressions and we unified them.
- muliti-Ei and Multi-Ei --> muliti-Ei
- Q-ω and E --> E
- Q and q --> q
10. Some of abbreviations were used without explanations. So, we added explanations.
- PSD
- RRM
- 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D
- NSE, NRSE, and MIEZE
11. We replaced Refs. [13] and [20] were updated, since they are much newer and we considered much appropriate
The following is reply to individual referee.
We really appreciate referee's critical reading.
> 1. The paper would benefit from proof reading by a native English speaker to tidy up the grammar (e.g. use or otherwise of definite and indefinite articles), throughout the article, and especially the abstract.
We have had professional English editing services. We hope that our English was improved a little bit...
> 2. The author affiliations could be tidied up and shortened by condensing institutions 1, 5, 8, 13, 17 and 20 into a single affiliation “Materials & Life Sciences Division, J-PARC,…” The external reader neither cares about nor needs to know the microscopic bureaucratic structure of J-PARC.
We reconsidered the list of affiliations of authors as referee pointed out. We ignored small structure of the organizations, and reduced the number of listed affiliations from 20 to 15.
> 3. I am somewhat surprised that Dr. Masatoshi Arai is not included as an author (or even acknowledged), as he led the team that installed most, if not all, of these instruments.
We really thank referee for reminding us the important thing.
We added the acknowledgement to him.
> 4. On line 98, change “decupler” to “decoupler”, and “blew out” to “surpassed”
>
> 5. Throughout the article, change “monochromatize” to “monochromate”
We have changed as referee pointed out.
> 6. In Table 1, it would be very helpful to include the literature references for each of the instruments in the Table, as an extra column. For some instruments, these are already in the following text.
We have added references in Table 1 and, also, the list in page 4.
> 7. I note that just over half of the instruments have an individual table of specifications. It would be good if more of them could (i.e. 4SEASONS, DNA, PLANET, HRC, SENJU and POLANO). Ideally, all should include the Q (or d-spacing) and/or energy-transfer ranges, and resolutions, as well as sample/beam sizes and typical measurement times (at stated source power say, 300kW). The table for AMATERAS (Table 2) is a good model for the others. I also note that the Table 7 (SOFIA) is very different in style and content to the others. Maybe Table 7 should be retained, and an additional one more in keeping with the other instruments included as well.
We have added tables for BL01, 02, 06, 09, 11, 12, 16, 18, 21 and 23. In the case of old Table 7 (SOFIA), we negotiate with SOFIA people and they added a new table.
> 8. Of the three introductions to the instrument groups (Inelastic, Crystal Structure and Nanostructure), the introduction to the Crystal Structure Group on lines 539 to 560 is quite dense and difficult to read. The Figure (12) is very useful, but I would suggest that this section be rewritten more in the style of the other two groups.
We reconsidered the text of the introduction of the Crystal Structure Group. We hope that the part of this group has become clearer now.
Kenji Nakajima,
on behalf of authors of the manuscript entitled "Materials and Life Science Experimental Facility 3 (MLF) at J‐PARC. II―Neutron Scattering Instruments."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript presents an exhaustive review of the 21 instruments that are either in operation, or in the commissioning stage at the Materials and Life Sciences Facility (MLF) at the Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex (JPARC) in Tokai, Japan. The combination of the technical detail and candid anecdotal experiences on the design and performance of these instruments will be of great value to the various research communities (physics, chemistry, materials and biological sciences, and industry) interested in the capabilities of this world class neutron research facility. In fact, I have no seen a publication that explains in such detail the suite of neutron instrumentation of any other facility of this magnitude. This review is sound and should be published. My only request is that, given the nature of this review that involves many authors who are not native English speakers, the authors recruit the help of a native English speaker to proofread and edit this manuscript to improve its readability.
Author Response
Dear Referees,
We would like to thank referees for their considering our manuscript. We appreciate referees' suggestions, which are really helpful to us in our improving the manuscript. We completely revised our manuscript and, especially we have had professional English editing services to improve English writing in the manuscript.
Details of changes in our manuscript are as follows.
0. We have changed the title of the article to "Materials and Life Science Experimental Facility 3 (MLF) at J‐PARC. II―Neutron Scattering Instruments." Main reason is the suggestion from a English editing service's comment.
1. In accordance with a comment from both referees, we have had professional English editing services to improve English writing in the manuscript. As a result, many of parts of the text have been changed. Especially, we rewrite 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the introduction was re-written, since this part was too confusing.
2. In accordance with a comment from referee#1, the introduction of the Crystal Structure Group was revised.
3. In accordance with a comment from referee#1, we reconsidered the list of affiliations of authors. We ignored small structure of the organizations, and reduced the number of listed affiliations from 20 to 15.
4. In accordance with a comment from referee#1, we added tables describing characteristic parameters of the instruments for BL01, 02, 06, 09, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 21 and 23.
5. In accordance with a comment from referee#1, we added references in the list of instruments in page 4 and the table in page 5. We also changed the order of the list in page 4 in concert with the order of appearing in the main text of each sub-sections.
6. In accordance with a comment from referee#1, we added acknowledgments to Prof. Masa Arai and other past and present Division Heads of MLF.
7. We changed names of BL05, 09, 11, 15, 17 and 18. It was suggested by professional English editing services and was the results of our discussion.
8. We found errors in the years of starting operations of BL11 and 15 and corrected them from 2010 to 2011.
9. There are several confusing expressions and we unified them.
- muliti-Ei and Multi-Ei --> muliti-Ei
- Q-ω and E --> E
- Q and q --> q
10. Some of abbreviations were used without explanations. So, we added explanations.
- PSD
- RRM
- 1D, 2D, 3D and 4D
- NSE, NRSE, and MIEZE
11. We replaced Refs. [13] and [20] were updated, since they are much newer and we considered much appropriate
The following is reply to individual referee.
We really appreciate referee's critical reading.
We considered that the main and most important point of referee's comment is English writing. So, we have had professional English editing services. We hope that our English was improved a little bit...
Kenji Nakajima,
on behalf of authors of the manuscript entitled "Materials and Life Science Experimental Facility 3 (MLF) at J‐PARC. II―Neutron Scattering Instruments."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
