Microgravity Crystal Formation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript primarily investigates how crystallization in a microgravity environment compares to crystallization under terrestrial conditions. It assesses multiple metrics including crystal size, structure, uniformity, resolution limit, and mosaicity, aiming to understand whether microgravity offers significant advantages for crystal formation across various molecular complexities.

The topic is highly original and relevant. It addresses a specific gap by providing a comprehensive analysis of a broad range of crystallization experiments in microgravity, something that has not been thoroughly compiled and analyzed in previous research.

·       The authors should consider providing more details about the selection criteria for the experiments included in the meta-analysis to enhance the clarity and reproducibility of the study.

·       Including further controls or comparisons with earth-based crystallization experiments under varied conditions could strengthen the study's conclusions.

·       Including more comparative visual representations of crystal structures formed in microgravity vs. terrestrial conditions could provide a more tangible understanding of the improvements noted.

·       The authors should revise the links provided in the Data Availability Statement ( I could not open these links).

·       The authors should include a conclusion section to help a reader not familiar with the topic.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor revisions

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Your suggestions have improved the paper.

• The authors should consider providing more details about the selection criteria for the experiments included in the meta-analysis to enhance the clarity and reproducibility of the study.

Response: We have added more details about the selection criteria in the methodology section.

• Including further controls or comparisons with earth-based crystallization experiments under varied conditions could strengthen the study's conclusions.

Response: Another reviewer suggested we provide more details to the metrics utilized in our analysis. As we are not reporting on crystallization experiments of our own, we felt it was more appropriate to discuss the parameters of the metrics and how we made our determinations rather than utilize one (of many hundreds) example.

• Including more comparative visual representations of crystal structures formed in microgravity vs. terrestrial conditions could provide a more tangible understanding of the improvements noted.

Response: Any visual representations of crystals would not be ours, but rather the authors of the source data. The databases have a column that reports if visual information is present in the source data, and we have added a line about this in the methods section (line 74).

• The authors should revise the links provided in the Data Availability Statement ( I could not open these links).

Response: It is not clear why these links would not open for you. They are the correct links.

• The authors should include a conclusion section to help a reader not familiar with the topic.

Response: A conclusion section has been added.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Crystals 2775968

In this paper, the authors collect information on different method of crystallization for obtention of crystals with different quality for various applications. The analysis evaluated different parameters, size, structural improvement, uniformity, resolution limit and improved mosaicist. The analysis has demonstrated that success rates of crystallization experiments in microgravity have improved over time.

 

The obtention of monocrystals is a problem in many compounds. The method that presents the authors is interesting and the information is sparsely and necessary group.

This study is well done and well designed.

In my opinion is a further review that not an article.

Comment

1)      Complete the introduction, add a resume of different traditional methods of crystallization

2)      Define the difference between macromolecules/organic and inorganic compounds

3)      The Part of “Materials and Methods” is good and well defined the revision

4)      Line 359-366, revise and rewrite the paragraph

5)      Add conclusion

6)      Complete references

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The minor changes are necessary

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. The revisions have greatly improved this paper.

Comment

1)      Complete the introduction, add a resume of different traditional methods of crystallization

Response: We have expanded the introduction. While outside the scope of this study, we have referenced two other works by our group that do review methods of crystallization.

2)      Define the difference between macromolecules/organic and inorganic compounds

Response: Thank you for this insight. We have more fully described the compounds in each database in lines 62-70.

3)      The Part of “Materials and Methods” is good and well defined the revision

Response: Thank you. Other reviewers suggested some additions to the materials and methods section, and you will see these additions in the revised version.

4)      Line 359-366, revise and rewrite the paragraph

Response: Thank you. This paragraph has been rewritten.

5)      Add conclusion

Response: Another reviewer agreed. A conclusion has been added.

6)      Complete references

Response: Additional references have been added.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting manuscript that requires some improvement before it can be considered for publication

--Improve Engish grammar (i.e word choice, structure, avoid starting consecutive sentences with the same word, etc)

--Improve abstract and conclusions .

--better support conclusions and make sure novel aspects of the study are detailed

--avoid lumping references - discuss each individually (i.e. bottom page 1, etc)

--Discuss data in the tables in more detail.

--Discuss the various categories

-- Define "improvement" for various metrics

--specify all the metrics considered and what would be improved

--discuss metric comparison and if they are like to like

--maybe to a comparison that is recent (i.e.2010s)

--provide relevant, more recent references (i.e less than 5 yr old). Currently there are only 8 of 39 references that are recent

--

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

-Improve Engish grammar (i.e word choice, structure, avoid starting consecutive sentences with the same word, etc)

Author Response

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript. Your suggestions have greatly improved our paper.

--Improve Engish grammar (i.e word choice, structure, avoid starting consecutive sentences with the same word, etc)

Response: Thank you. The wording was changed in multiple places, awkward sentences adjusted, and tense issues addressed.

--Improve abstract and conclusions .

Response: Thank you. The abstract has been revised and a conclusion has been added.

--better support conclusions and make sure novel aspects of the study are detailed

Response: Thank you. We believe that we have highlighted the novel aspects of utilizing the database to good effect. We feel that the conclusions are better supported.

--avoid lumping references - discuss each individually (i.e. bottom page 1, etc)

Response: Thank you. The references have been pulled apart and discussed individually in two sections of the manuscript - at the bottom of page 1 and on page 13.

--Discuss data in the tables in more detail.

Response: Thank you. Additional details about the data in the tables has been added, when appropriate, to the text.

--Discuss the various categories

Response: We were not clear what categories the reviewer was referring to. We are hopeful that the clarifications suggested by other reviewers has addressed this point.

-- Define "improvement" for various metrics

Response: Thank you. Examples of what "improvement" means for various metrics is now included in the manuscript.

--specify all the metrics considered and what would be improved

Response: Thank you. We believe that we addressed this in the previous point.

--discuss metric comparison and if they are like to like

Response: Thank you. We believe that we addressed this in the previous point.

--maybe to a comparison that is recent (i.e.2010s)

Response: We have added several more references, including three more from the 2020's (the crystals were flown in the 2010s and included in that data). We utilized examples from these articles to elaborate our points.

--provide relevant, more recent references (i.e less than 5 yr old). Currently there are only 8 of 39 references that are recent

Response: Thank you. As a decadal analysis, some of the references will, by necessity, be older. We have added three more references from the 2020s.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend the publication of this article. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor revision

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The improved manuscript has addressed most of my concerns and can now be published

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The improved manuscript has addressed most of my concerns and can now be published