Studies of Dislocations in Type Ib, Type IIa HPHT and CVD Single Crystal Diamonds

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

D S Misra, submitted the manuscript entitled “Studies of dislocations in type Ib, type IIa HPHT and CVD single crystal diamonds”, to be published in “Crystals (I.F = 2.670)”. In this review paper, author studied the dislocations in type Ib, type IIa HPHT and CVD single crystal diamonds. It can be accepted after addressing the queries.

1. In the abstract and introduction, the motivation and requirement to deliver this review is missing, this should be clarified for the readers.
2. In the abstract while mentioning HPHT and CVD, it is much admirable to deliver its definitions for the readers.
3. In the introduction also deliver the statement regarding the use of single crystal and nanodiamond-based materials with following citations; 1. Crystals 2017, 7, 114; 2. Functional diamond, 2021, 1, 205 -220; 3. Scientific Reports, 2017, 7, 11243; 4. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 64; 5. Materials 2019, 12, 2492; 6. Nanomaterials 2019, 9, 415 and 7. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 18935−18941.
4. In many XRT Topographic images the scale bars are missing as well as the relevant literature references.
5. Author must deliver the own comments on each discussed data along with certain feasible future implementations to overcome those dislocations.
6. Enhance the resolution of all Figures with proper mentioning of the literature from where they have taken for reproduction.
7. Results and discussion in few sections are seems to be deficient without author’s analysis.
8. Provide title for conclusion and perspective section.
9. Update the reference section with more recent literature. 

Author Response

D S Misra, submitted the manuscript entitled “Studies of dislocations in type Ib, type IIa HPHT and CVD single crystal diamonds”, to be published in “Crystals (I.F = 2.670)”. In this review paper, author studied the dislocations in type Ib, type IIa HPHT and CVD single crystal diamonds. It can be accepted after addressing the queries.

Thank you very much for your comments I seriously believe that the comments of the reviewers are the best way to improve manuscript. My response to specific comments is as below:

1. In the abstract and introduction, the motivation and requirement to deliver this review is missing, this should be clarified for the readers. Done please see lines 16-22 and 32-39
2. In the abstract while mentioning HPHT and CVD, it is much admirable to deliver its definitions for the readers. Done
3. In the introduction also deliver the statement regarding the use of single crystal and nanodiamond-based materials with following citations; 1. Crystals 2017, 7, 114; 2. Functional diamond, 2021, 1, 205 -220; 3. Scientific Reports, 2017, 7, 11243; 4. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 64; 5. Materials 2019, 12, 2492; 6. Nanomaterials 2019, 9, 415 and 7. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 18935−18941. Done
4. In many XRT Topographic images the scale bars are missing as well as the relevant literature references. Added scale bar everywhere, it was in the figure captions.
5. Author must deliver the own comments on each discussed data along with certain feasible future implementations to overcome those dislocations. Yes done please see the conclusions lines 513-528
6. Enhance the resolution of all Figures with proper mentioning of the literature from where they have taken for reproduction. Done
7. Results and discussion in few sections are seems to be deficient without author’s analysis. Corrected and added please see Lines 168-170, 207-210, 294-297, 316-318, 332-342,424-427,442-458, 463-473
8. Provide title for conclusion and perspective section. Done
9. Update the reference section with more recent literature. Done

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The work of Misra could be interesting to the audience of the journal. While this review is done with some care, there are some grammatical and typographical errors all over the ms. For example, the author of the work wrote on page 11 that “It Is…”; “Is” should not be capitalized in this sentence. Picture qualities are no good. I wonder what software were used to generate the pictures. If they were taken from other studies, such studies should be cited in Figure captions. In fact, the qualities of most of figure are blurry, including the text appeared on the figures. What I am greatly lacking is that this review does not have “Conclusion” section, and it lacks any directions for future research.  And there are almost no data included from theoretical research studies. 

Author Response

The work of Misra could be interesting to the audience of the journal. While this review is done with some care, there are some grammatical and typographical errors all over the ms. For example, the author of the work wrote on page 11 that “It Is…”; “Is” should not be capitalized in this sentence. Picture qualities are no good. I wonder what software were used to generate the pictures. If they were taken from other studies, such studies should be cited in Figure captions. In fact, the qualities of most of figure are blurry, including the text appeared on the figures. What I am greatly lacking is that this review does not have “Conclusion” section, and it lacks any directions for future research.  And there are almost no data included from theoretical research studies. 

Thank you very much for your comments. I have incorporated all suggestions:

Spell check done, editing check done. Added separate sections on Discussions and Conclusions.

Directions of future research is added in conclusions 515-527

Two theory references are added and referred in manuscript ref. 49 and 50.

 

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The review deals with the Studies of dislocations in type Ib, type IIa HPHT and CVD single crystal diamonds. 

According to the reviewer, the paper is not worth publishing at Crystals Journal, 

since corrections are needed and then the review can be accepted for publication in the journal.

While the authors have made considerable research effort, 

the presentation of the paper and the results must be proved. 

Additionally make the following corrections to the manuscript:

 

Comment 1

Line 21

The author must format the review according to the journal's instructions.

 

applications1-5. Methane

The author must replace

applications [1-5]. Methane

 

The author must proofread the entire text according to the journal's instructions.

 

Comment 2

Lines 31 and 32

Extended text editing.

Anthony and Banholzer7.

The author must check if the ref. [7]: Anthony and Banholzer [7].

While line 415:

7. W. Banholzer, Diamond & Related Materials, 1, (1992), 1157 

 

Comment 3

Line 40

Novikov et al12 analysed

The author must replace

Novikov et al. [12] analysed

 

The author must replace "et al" to "et al." in the entire text.

 

Comment 4

Line 48

using Xray topography1,2,13-36,38-40.

 

According to the journal;s instuctions:

References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including citations in tables and legends) and listed indi-vidually at the end of the manuscript.

 

The ref [37] is missing.

 

The author must comment all the references into the text (Ref. [37] and [41]).

Also, the author cites too many references in one sentence.

 

Comment 5

Line 60

(404).36

The author must replace

(404) [36].

 

Line 63

diamond in ninties.as the intensity of the Xray

 

Extended text editing.

 

Line 68

birefringenc20.

 

Extended text editing.

 

Line 69

et. al20-22,

The author must replace

et al. [20-22],

 

Line 78

studies.26,31,38,40

The author must replace

studies [26,31,38,40].

 

Comment 6

The author should consider whether it is necessary to obtain permission to publish images from publications 

other authors' publications in various Publishers.

 

Comment 7

Figure 3

The author must check if the Figure 1 is from the Ref. [1].

 

Comment 8

Lines 184 and 260

It is no so good to use the word "we".

The author must rephrase.

 

Comment 9

Line 221

Sumiya et.al23,

 

But Line 432

23. Macrander at al, Appl. Phys. Lett. 87, (2005), 194113 

 

Line 239

of Burns et al31.

 

But Line 443

31. I. Prokhorov, V. Ralchenko, A. Bolshakov, A. Polskiy, A. Vlasov, I. Subbotin, K. Podurets, E. Pashaev, and E. Sozontov,

Crystallography Reports, 58, (2013), 1010 

 

Line 247

of Burns et al.(ref. 31).

But Line 443

31. I. Prokhorov, V. Ralchenko, A. Bolshakov, A. Polskiy, A. Vlasov, I. Subbotin, K. Podurets, E. Pashaev, and E. Sozontov,

Crystallography Reports, 58, (2013), 1010  

 

Line 307

Yap et al15

 

But Line 424 (there is not Yap)

15. A. R. Lang, Nature, 213, (1967), 248

 

Line 336

It Is apparent

The author must replace

It is apparent

 

Line 325

Stoupin et al31

But Line 443 (there is not Stoupin)

31. I. Prokhorov, V. Ralchenko, A. Bolshakov, A. Polskiy, A. Vlasov, I. Subbotin, K. Podurets, E. Pashaev, and E. Sozontov, 

Crystallography Reports, 58, (2013), 1010 

 

Comment 10

Figures 6, 8 and 9

The author must improove the visibility (especially in the text).

 

Comment 11

Line 230 vs Line 232

Figure 6 title: from ref 32. 

 

from Shikata36 is shown in Figure 6 (b). 

 

Ref. 32 or 36?

 

Comment 12

4. Discussion

Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the per-spective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their impli-cations should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research directions may also be highlighted.

5. Conclusions

This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.

 

According to the journal's instructions, the author must insert a section "Discussion".

 

Comment 13

The authors must format the References according to the journal's instructions

References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work:

Journal Articles:

1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

 

The author did not insert the "Title of the article" for all References.

 

Comment 14

Increase the number of the reference papers including (primarily) from MDPI journals.

The authors use 2 papers from Crystals / 3 papers from MDPI journals / 42 papers from journals (References).

Τhe number for papers from MDPI journals 

is considered insufficient (in reviewer's opinion).

For examble:

For journal "Diamond & Related Materials" = 13 / 42 

Author Response

The review deals with the Studies of dislocations in type Ib, type IIa HPHT and CVD single crystal diamonds. 

According to the reviewer, the paper is not worth publishing at Crystals Journal, 

since corrections are needed and then the review can be accepted for publication in the journal.

While the authors have made considerable research effort, 

the presentation of the paper and the results must be proved.

Dear Reviewer, Thank you for your comments, I seriously believe that the reviewer’s  comments improve the manuscript. I have modified the manuscript in view of your comments:

Have tried by adding more discussions and future direction. Added discussions from lines168-170, 207-210, 294-297, 316-318, 332-342,424-427,442-458, 463-473  441-460, 465-470 and 515-523. All the figures have the scale bar and the references. The discussion of the figures is improved in the text.

Additionally make the following corrections to the manuscript:

Comment 1

Line 21

The author must format the review according to the journal's instructions.

Done

 

applications1-5. Methane

The author must replace

applications [1-5]. Methane

Done

The author must proofread the entire text according to the journal's instructions.

 

Comment 2

Lines 31 and 32

Extended text editing.

Anthony and Banholzer7.

The author must check if the ref. [7]: Anthony and Banholzer [7].

While line 415:

7. W. Banholzer, Diamond & Related Materials, 1, (1992), 1157

Done 

 

Comment 3

Line 40

Novikov et al12 analysed

The author must replace

Novikov et al. [12] analysed

 

The author must replace "et al" to "et al." in the entire text.

 Done

Comment 4

Line 48

using Xray topography1,2,13-36,38-40.

 

According to the journal;s instuctions:

References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including citations in tables and legends) and listed indi-vidually at the end of the manuscript.

 Done

The ref [37] is missing.

 

The author must comment all the references into the text (Ref. [37] and [41]).

Also, the author cites too many references in one sentence.

 

Comment 5

Line 60

(404).36

The author must replace

(404) [36].

Done 

Line 63

diamond in ninties.as the intensity of the Xray

 

Extended text editing.

 

Line 68

birefringenc20.

 

Extended text editing.

 

Line 69

1. al20-22,

The author must replace

et al. [20-22],

 Done

Line 78

studies.26,31,38,40

The author must replace

studies [26,31,38,40].

Done

 

Comment 6

The author should consider whether it is necessary to obtain permission to publish images from publications 

other authors' publications in various Publishers.

Done

 

Comment 7

Figure 3

The author must check if the Figure 1 is from the Ref. [1].

It is from ref 33

 

Comment 8

Lines 184 and 260

It is no so good to use the word "we".

The author must rephrase.

Done

 

Comment 9

Line 221

Sumiya et.al23,

 

But Line 432

23. Macrander at al, Appl. Phys. Lett. 87, (2005), 194113 

 

Line 239

of Burns et al31.

 

But Line 443

31. I. Prokhorov, V. Ralchenko, A. Bolshakov, A. Polskiy, A. Vlasov, I. Subbotin, K. Podurets, E. Pashaev, and E. Sozontov,

Crystallography Reports, 58, (2013), 1010 

 

Line 247

of Burns et al.(ref. 31).

But Line 443

31. I. Prokhorov, V. Ralchenko, A. Bolshakov, A. Polskiy, A. Vlasov, I. Subbotin, K. Podurets, E. Pashaev, and E. Sozontov,

Crystallography Reports, 58, (2013), 1010  

 

Line 307

Yap et al15

Corrected

 

But Line 424 (there is not Yap)

15. A. R. Lang, Nature, 213, (1967), 248

 

Line 336

It Is apparent

The author must replace

It is apparent

Done

 

Line 325

Stoupin et al31

But Line 443 (there is not Stoupin)

31. I. Prokhorov, V. Ralchenko, A. Bolshakov, A. Polskiy, A. Vlasov, I. Subbotin, K. Podurets, E. Pashaev, and E. Sozontov, 

Crystallography Reports, 58, (2013), 1010 

Done 

Comment 10

Figures 6, 8 and 9

The author must improove the visibility (especially in the text).

 

Comment 11

Line 230 vs Line 232

Figure 6 title: from ref 32. 

 

from Shikata36 is shown in Figure 6 (b). 

 

Ref. 32 or 36?

Done

Comment 12

4. Discussion

Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the per-spective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their impli-cations should be discussed in the broadest context possible. Future research directions may also be highlighted.

Please see above

5. Conclusions

This section is not mandatory but can be added to the manuscript if the discussion is unusually long or complex.

Done

 

According to the journal's instructions, the author must insert a section "Discussion".

Done 

Comment 13

The authors must format the References according to the journal's instructions

References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work:

Journal Articles:

1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal NameYear, Volume, page range.

 Done

The author did not insert the "Title of the article" for all References.

Done

Comment 14

Increase the number of the reference papers including (primarily) from MDPI journals.

The authors use 2 papers from Crystals / 3 papers from MDPI journals / 42 papers from journals (References).

Τhe number for papers from MDPI journals 

is considered insufficient (in reviewer's opinion).

For examble:

For journal "Diamond & Related Materials" = 13 / 42 

Done

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Author improved the manuscript according to reviewers comments. it can be accepted in its current version.

Author Response

Thank you for accepting the chnages.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The author of the work has considered my points and revised the paper that are colored in the revised ms. It may now be considered for publication. 

Author Response

Thank you for accepting the revisions.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comment 1

Line 45

Anthony and Banholzer [13].

The author must replace

Banholzer and Anthony [13].

 

Line 568

13. W. Banholzer, Isotope Enrichment During Diamond Growth, Diamond & Related Materials, 1, (1992), 1157. 

 

The author must correct the Ref. [13] with the two authors (W.F. Banholzer, T.R. Anthony). 

 

et.al.

The author must replace

et al. 

For example

Line 54

Novikov et.al.[18] 

the author must replace

Novikov et al.[18] 

 

 

Comment 2

The author should provide figure permission from the owner of the copyright of the original figure (usually the publisher).

 

Lines 109 - 113

The figure is taken from ref 27

but ref. 33: Finkelstein,

 

Τhe author must be quite careful, because there may be ethical issues.

 

Lines 303 - 310

Burns et. al. (ref. 35). The

But

from ref. 41: R. C. Burns,

Τhe author must be quite careful, because there may be ethical issues.

 

Lines 413 - 417

The image is from ref. 13: C.M. Yap

There is no Yap at the Ref. [13]!!!

Τhe author must be quite careful, because there may be ethical issues.

 

 

Comment 3

Previous Comment 13

Comment 13

The authors must format the References according to the journal's instructions

References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work:

Journal Articles:

1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

 

It is disappointing that while it has been pointed out in the previous review, the author has mentioned "done" and in fact not followed the reviewer's instructions. 

 

Comment 4

Line 84

by Moore et. al. [24]. 

There is no Moore at Ref. [24]!!!

 

Comment 5

Line 140

The author should insert a comment for Ref. [47].

References: References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. 

 

Comment 6

Lines 152 - 153

ref. 49: V. N. Kazuchits,

But the Ref. [49] is not V. N. Kazuchits.

 

Comment 7

Lines 172 - 175, 189 - 191, 247 - 248, before Line 250, Lines 344 - 351, Lines 360 - 361, Line 380 and Lines 381 - 382.

The author should delete the lines.

 

Comment 8

Line 232

plane. We see essentially

It is not so good to use the word "we".

 

Comment 9

Line 411

dimensions we 5 mm x 5mm. 

Extended text editing.

 

Comment 10

Lines 624 - 625

174 and references therein

The author should delete the "174 and references therein".

 

Author Response

Line 45

Anthony and Banholzer [13].

The author must replace

Banholzer and Anthony [13].

 

Line 568

13. W. Banholzer, Isotope Enrichment During Diamond Growth, Diamond & Related Materials, 1, (1992), 1157. 

 

The author must correct the Ref. [13] with the two authors (W.F. Banholzer, T.R. Anthony). 

 Done

et.al.

The author must replace

et al. 

For example

Line 54

Novikov et.al.[18] 

the author must replace

Novikov et al.[18] 

This is done in entire manuscript, et.al. changed to et al.

 

 

Comment 2

The author should provide figure permission from the owner of the copyright of the original figure (usually the publisher).

Copyright permission letters sent to Maria Chen of MDPI my associate editor

Lines 109 - 113

The figure is taken from ref 27

but ref. 33: Finkelstein,

 

Τhe author must be quite careful, because there may be ethical issues.

 This is corrected.

Lines 303 - 310

Burns et. al. (ref. 35). The

But

from ref. 41: R. C. Burns,

Τhe author must be quite careful, because there may be ethical issues.

This is changed.

 

Lines 413 - 417

The image is from ref. 13: C.M. Yap

There is no Yap at the Ref. [13]!!!

Τhe author must be quite careful, because there may be ethical issues.

Have done.

 

 

Comment 3

Previous Comment 13

Comment 13

The authors must format the References according to the journal's instructions

References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work:

Journal Articles:

1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

 

It is disappointing that while it has been pointed out in the previous review, the author has mentioned "done" and in fact not followed the reviewer's instructions. 

My apologies, have changed in the entire manuscript.

 

Comment 4

Line 84

by Moore et. al. [24]. 

There is no Moore at Ref. [24]!!!

Corrected

 

Comment 5

Line 140

The author should insert a comment for Ref. [47].

The comment is on line no 463 where [47] is referred.

References: References must be numbered in order of appearance in the text (including table captions and figure legends) and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. 

 

Comment 6

Lines 152 - 153

ref. 49: V. N. Kazuchits,

But the Ref. [49] is not V. N. Kazuchits.

Corrected

 

Comment 7

Lines 172 - 175, 189 - 191, 247 - 248, before Line 250, Lines 344 - 351, Lines 360 - 361, Line 380 and Lines 381 - 382.

The author should delete the lines.

Most of the above are accommodated.

 

Comment 8

Line 232

plane. We see essentially

It is not so good to use the word "we".

Corrected

 

Comment 9

Line 411

dimensions we 5 mm x 5mm. 

Extended text editing.

Done there is dimensions in Figure.

 

Comment 10

Lines 624 - 625

174 and references therein

The author should delete the "174 and references therein".

This is corrected.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The author must format the References according to the journal's instructions

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/crystals/instructions

References should be described as follows, depending on the type of work:

• Journal Articles:
  1. Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your assistance in improving the manuscript. I have now complied with the reference requirement of Crystals. I hope all references are in order. For most I found the page range however for some old ones only the initial page is there.

With best regards  

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

This is a review paper of the X-ray topography studies on the single crystal Diamonds grown by CVD and HPHT. The paper is well written with a concise summary of recent X-ray topographic studies of Diamonds. The current manuscript well suited for the scientific community. Therefore, I recommend publishing the review after the following comments are addressed.

Thank you for the critical reading and insightful comments

 

 

The specific comments are listed below.

1. At line 41 in introduction section, “The modulation of K has been…” is not easily understood. Please introduce easier.
2. corrected
3. At lines 61-62 in experimental section, the angular resolution is mentioned. If it is possible, please add the estimation (calculation) method, for example, the equation using the various values of experimental setup.
4. It would depend upon the pixel size, the distance between the sample and detector as well as the error limit of the detector. However, I donot have the instrumentation details to calculate it my apologies.
5. At lines 84-86 in experimental section, “Under the conditions…black contrast line or double lines and …” is shown. What is the difference of the black contrast line and double lines? Does the latter mean the double image of the dislocation? Please explain them.
6. Single dislocation will be a point with a small trail. If the dislocations fall along a line which happens if polishing lines are present, the points will be replaced by a thick line.
7. At lines around 143-150, are the sentences the captions of Figure 4? It is not clear whether the caption or main text.
8. At lines around 174-176, there is no (110) plane although the crystallographic planes of the diamonds with type IIa are (100), (110), and (111).
9. This is just symbolic but I would change to (111), (220), and (400)
10. At line 222, the author mentioned that the rocking curve width is 4-5 arc sec in Figure 6. However, there is no maps of the rocking curves. If it is possible, please add the map of the rocking curve width of the sample shown in Figure 6.
11. The rocking curve width is mentioned in the paper by Sumiya et al 1997
12. At lines around 247-249, are the sentences the captions of Figure 8? It is not clear whether the caption or main text.
13. Corrected
14. At lines in 262-263, the author mentioned that the selected CVD diamond plates could be useful for the X-ray monochromator applications. In general, How the curvature radius is desired for the application as the X-ray monochromator? Please introduce or explain the desired condition.
15. The Curvature would affect the distance of the sample and detector and therefore the result of XRT
16. At lines 268-269, the author mentioned that the difference could arise due to the different growth mechanism of the CVD and HPHT Diamonds. Please introduce or explain the difference of the growth mechanism of these diamonds crystals.
17. Corrected

 

Finally, there are some typo(?) or mistakes as follows,

1. There are two notations such as “X-ray” or “Xray”. Please unify the notation. At line 195, “x-ray” is also used. Please confirm the notation in whole text.
2. The notation of the angle may be incorrect, for example, at line 68, the correct is 90º (not 90⁰). In the caption of Figure 2, it is also.
3. At line 107, “… a Dislocation is …” should be changed as “… a dislocation is …”.
4. At line 220, “The Rocking curve…” should be changed as “The rocking curve…”.
5. At line 255, the reference number of Stoupin et al is 31, but the correct number is 32. Please confirm it.
6. Where is the referred sentence by reference number 33?

Corrected all above thankful for the insightful comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

page2 line59: the reference number will be incorrect.(x20 -> 21??)

Figure1: This figure is copied from ref.21. I cannot find the copyright notice in this figure's caption. That won't be a problem will it? 

Because this is a figure that doesn't explain enough for the XRT beginner, I reccomend to rewrite your figure from the beginning.

(For example, I don't know at all parts of goniometer, camera and ... what? (maybe, it is sample&holder)

page3 line82: "all defect" is too power word to show the SR's superiority. It is depend on some parameter, for example, the light source's quality, resolusion of detector and sample thickness.

Figure2: I think it would be helpful if there was a size bar in the figure.

Figure2, caption: Please check the unit notation "°". This symbol appears to be "zero" on my display.

page4 line118-120: "...center of many crystals..." This is a subjective comment. It is depend on the way of catting from seed. 

page4 line119 & Figure3:At first, please unify the units in the paper, "0.8cm" and 8mm. Second, I wonder "0.8cm" diameter. How about the size of diamond substrate.

Figure3: I think it would be helpful if there was a size bar in the figure.

Please show the crystal plane orientation in this figure.

page4, line130: I reccomend to put the crystal plane orientation, (001) in this sentence.

Figure 4: 

Please show the XRT image of the sample. I doubt the possibility of being any growth sector. Please see ref.26. Please show the crystal plane orientation in this figure.

page5 line148: 1micro-radians MAY BE not 0.26 arc sec.

page6 line160: I hope to refer to ref.29 to verify whether the content is correct or not. (Because the paper's status is "preprint", it is impossible)

Figure5(a): I reccomend to put the "correct" crystal plane orientation. Why there are three (100) faces ?

page7, line188: "The full width at Halt Maxima(FWHM)" is already written in page2 line50

all pages: Please unify the units in the paper. radian? arcsec? degrees?

page7, line194: I cannot find "1-2 arcsec" from the reference paper, no.26.

page8, line211: "the density of dislocation bondle is so high" is a subjective/vague expression. This may be not match to the scientific paper.

Figure7: 

Please show the crystal plane orientation in this figure.

I think it would be helpful if there was a size bar in the figure.

page9, line235: please check the reference number.

Figure8:

Please show the crystal plane orientation in this figure.

Please check the size bar. How about the substrate's size.

page9, line255: please check the reference number.

Author Response

Dear Maria

I am indebted to referee for the insightful comments.

My response point wise to referee’s comments below:

page2 line59: the reference number will be incorrect.(x20 -> 21??)

Corrected new ref is 24

Figure1: This figure is copied from ref.21. I cannot find the copyright notice in this figure's caption. That won't be a problem will it? 

Added ref 24 in figure caption

Because this is a figure that doesn't explain enough for the XRT beginner, I reccomend to rewrite your figure from the beginning.

(For example, I don't know at all parts of goniometer, camera and ... what? (maybe, it is sample&holder)

Edited as per the comment

page3 line82: "all defect" is too power word to show the SR's superiority. It is depend on some parameter, for example, the light source's quality, resolusion of detector and sample thickness.

Figure2: I think it would be helpful if there was a size bar in the figure.

Figure2, caption: Please check the unit notation "°". This symbol appears to be "zero" on my display.

Edited as per the comment

page4 line118-120: "...center of many crystals..." This is a subjective comment. It is depend on the way of catting from seed. 

Corrected

page4 line119 & Figure3:At first, please unify the units in the paper, "0.8cm" and 8mm. Second, I wonder "0.8cm" diameter. How about the size of diamond substrate.

Corrected

Figure3: I think it would be helpful if there was a size bar in the figure.

Please show the crystal plane orientation in this figure.

page4, line130: I reccomend to put the crystal plane orientation, (001) in this sentence.

corrected

Figure 4: 

Please show the XRT image of the sample. I doubt the possibility of being any growth sector. Please see ref.26. Please show the crystal plane orientation in this figure.

For the sample in Figure 4 no XRT image, agree there is no growth sector

page5 line148: 1micro-radians MAY BE not 0.26 arc sec

Corrected it is 0.206 arc sec thank you for pointing out.

page6 line160: I hope to refer to ref.29 to verify whether the content is correct or not. (Because the paper's status is "preprint", it is impossible)

Edited removed the ref

Figure5(a): I reccomend to put the "correct" crystal plane orientation the Figure three (100) fa

page7, line188: "The full width at Halt Maxima(FWHM)" is already written in page2 line50

Corrected

all pages: Please unify the units in the paper. radian? arcsec? degrees?

Corrected

page7, line194: I cannot find "1-2 arcsec" from the reference paper, no.26.

I had estimated it, but Ref. 31 mentions it

page8, line211: "the density of dislocation bondle is so high" is a subjective/vague expression. This may be not match to the scientific paper.

Corrected

Figure7: 

Please show the crystal plane orientation in this figure.

I think it would be helpful if there was a size bar in the figure.

page9, line235: please check the reference number.

Corrected

Figure8:

Please show the crystal plane orientation in this figure.

Please check the size bar. How about the substrate's size.

page9, line255: please check the reference number.

Corrected

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author, please find below comments raised on the manuscript titled ‘Review of the X-ray Topography Studies of type 1b, type IIa HPHT Diamonds, and CVD Single Crystal Diamonds‘, Manuscript ID: crystals-2220560.

Firstly, the motivation for writing the review presented is not obvious. What was the main issue for providing the information presented in the review?

Secondly, the structure of the review is weird, especially since that contains more article (research) parts than a review paper, especially when presenting an experimental issue.

I do not feel like an expert in this area, but the language is, generally, poor. Providing some review proposals should be sophisticated.

Additionlly to the above issue, the research of the literature is weak. There are many papers from before 10 years and, correspondingly, only 4 and 12 (from 33) are from the last 5 or 10 years, respectively. From that matter, is the review up-to-date, even the title can be classified as it is.

The main direction of the review is not clear. The reader feels lost in most cases and, respectively, far from a good understanding of what the Author is trying to convey. Any further studies are not supported by previous.

However, the nightmare comes at the end of the manuscript. The Conclusion should be received from the previous Discussion and, especially, separated from the results. The 3^rd section presents a general mess and is difficult to follow.

Moreover, there are many editorial issues like capital letters of selected section titles and some not.

From all of the above, feel sorry but cannot accept the manuscript reviewed.

Author Response

Dear author,

please find below comments raised on the manuscript titled ‘Review of the X-ray Topography Studies of type 1b, type IIa HPHT Diamonds, and CVD Single Crystal Diamonds‘, Manuscript ID: crystals-2220560.

Firstly, the motivation for writing the review presented is not obvious. What was the main issue for providing the information presented in the review?

Edited according to the comment

Secondly, the structure of the review is weird, especially since that contains more article (research) parts than a review paper, especially when presenting an experimental issue.

I do not feel like an expert in this area, but the language is, generally, poor. Providing some review proposals should be sophisticated.

Corrected to a great extent

Additionlly to the above issue, the research of the literature is weak. There are many papers from before 10 years and, correspondingly, only 4 and 12 (from 33) are from the last 5 or 10 years, respectively. From that matter, is the review up-to-date, even the title can be classified as it is.

The main direction of the review is not clear. The reader feels lost in most cases and, respectively, far from a good understanding of what the Author is trying to convey. Any further studies are not supported by previous.

However, the nightmare comes at the end of the manuscript. The Conclusion should be received from the previous Discussion and, especially, separated from the results. The 3^rd section presents a general mess and is difficult to follow.

Corrected all the above with the best of my ability thank you for the comment, I have added more papers in the review.

Moreover, there are many editorial issues like capital letters of selected section titles and some not.

From all of the above, feel sorry but cannot accept the manuscript reviewed.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your quick responses. 

I have confirmed some corrected parts, no response parts without any comment and additional corrections.

All of this paper (from title to conclusion): "1b" may be changed to "Ib", because you use the notation "IIa"

All of this paper: I can find places where capitalization is incorrect and symbol input error.

Figure 3: Please check the aspect ratio.

Figure 3: Shouldn't one of the two annotations be "dislocation bandles"?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for critical reading of the manuscript. I firmly believe that your opinion is very important for me and helps improve the quality of the paper. I have altered the manuscript as per your suggestions.

Thank you for your quick responses. 

I have confirmed some corrected parts, no response parts without any comment and additional corrections.

All of this paper (from title to conclusion): "1b" may be changed to "Ib", because you use the notation "IIa"

I have changed everywhere type Ib

All of this paper: I can find places where capitalization is incorrect and symbol input error.

Capitalization and symbols are corrected

Figure 3: Please check the aspect ratio.

Figure 3: Shouldn't one of the two annotations be "dislocation bandles"?

Yes, and corrected.

Warm regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author(s) of the manuscript titled ‘Review of the X-ray Topography Studies of type 1b, type IIa HPHT Diamonds, and CVD Single Crystal Diamonds‘, Manuscript ID: crystals-2220560.

My comments were really not accepted.

Some explanations were given that do not allow me to change my general view of the paper, they were too superficial.

I could practically write the same points here.

From all of the above, feel sorry but cannot accept the manuscript in the current, revised form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I humbly accept all your criticism and comments as I believe they help improve the manuscript. I have modified the title and part of the texts to indicate that I am no expert on the subject to be able to critically review all the results and suggest new experiments. My objective was to present the results of dislocations, dislocation bundles and dislocations aggregates in type Ib, type IIa and CVD diamonds which are captured using three different techniques. As you suggested I have added a short historical review of the results of XRT measurements. I have also given short introduction to the three techniques in tabular form

Dear Author(s) of the manuscript titled ‘Review of the X-ray Topography Studies of type 1b, type IIa HPHT Diamonds, and CVD Single Crystal Diamonds‘, Manuscript ID: crystals-2220560.

My comments were really not accepted.

Some explanations were given that do not allow me to change my general view of the paper, they were too superficial.

I have clarified above that the above manuscript is a compilation of the dislocations, dislocation bundles and dislocations aggregates as observed using three techniques. The objective was to present the results of three techniques at one place for the reader and illustrate the structure. Many results are on CVD diamonds as they are the recent materials.

I could practically write the same points here.

From all of the above, feel sorry but cannot accept the manuscript in the current, revised form.

Kindly consider the changes.

Best regards