New Approach to Cross-Correlation Reflectometry Diagnostics of Nonlocality of Plasma Turbulence
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting work to derive the mathematical expressions of the scattering and reflectometry measurement results as functions of the tokamak parameters. The plasma community usually relies on numerical simulation to study the tokamak behaviors. Amazingly, through a massive mathematical derivation, the authors now successfully achieve the analytical equations that can potentially be used as a quick and rough alternative to the experimental measurement, while plasma simulations can be time-consuming.
In spite of the inaccuracy in the comparison with experimental results such as Fig. 3b, Fig. 4c, and Fig. 5, this work is valuable. However, the analytical results deviate too much from the coherence modulus of TEXTOR and ASDEX as shown in Fig. 6b and Fig. 7a, and also the phase coherence as shown in Fig. 6a. The authors are requested to add more explanations and discussions of the inaccuracy. Is it because of the error in the experimental measurement or certain aspects are missing in the assumptions of this work?
Other minor issues:
- Use a specific variable instead of “…” in Eq. (68).
- Use English x axis label in Fig. 3b.
- Please remove the citation in the abstract.
Overall, this work is very interesting but still needs more explanation and discussions on the accuracy of the analytical results. I suggest a minor revision to this manuscript.
Author Response
The response is attached as a separate file. Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Alexander B. Kukushkin, et al. investigated a new approach to cross-correlation reflectometry diagnostics of nonlocality of plasma turbulence. Basically, this is a good study supported by enough data and discussion.
I recommend an acceptance of the current version.
Author Response
The response is attached as a separate file. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Review on “New approach to cross-correlation reflectometry diagnostics of nonlocality of plasma turbulence”
In this paper the authors propose an improved method to look at plasma turbulence. The paper is promising, mostly well written and the topic brings value to the state of the art in understanding plasma turbulences. It is well suited for the Symmetry community but it needs structural and presentation changes before publication.
1) in abstract there is no need for a citation which is out of the style, nor is it needed there. rows 18-19 repetition of word formulate. I suggest a strong revision of the abstract.
2) paragraph at raw 50 should be at the end of the Introduction. The introduction needs to be rewritten, it is allover the place oscillating between the state of the art and the approach of the paper. It needs to be very clear where is the bottleneck in literature and how their approach tackles that.
3) the paper has 28 pages which I would say for a communication is too much. This is review level of length for the paper.
The authors should seriously think if section 2 is truly needed.
3) the 3rd section starts with another introduction, not needed. Again, the work is appreciated but it needs to be better presented. All the introductory part should be in the introduction and the subsequent sections should be optimized for the expected goal
4) When comparison with various experimental data are presented there are some issues as well
Figure 2 seems redundant, or I suggest a different representation where the effect of the width of thermal distribution as a separate representation. Especially that the experimental data is repeating. All the discussion about the graphs should be ahead of the Figure, each time! What I noticed is that the discussion is superficial and need more depth. In all honesty is not enough to fit the data to have a good result, it needs more substance.
In Figure 4 only 1 graph has a good fit. I suggest to look at different experimental data or try to obtain better fitting. As it is the results are not satisfactory.
In Figure 6 the legend is missing please fix. Also the fit is not ok for 6 b).
Same comment for 7a .
Please consider the observations and improve the paper. I would love to read the modified paper.
Author Response
The response is attached as a separate file. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I would like to thank the authors for answering to all of my question. However, I am disappointed with their approach in answering some of my concern.
My suggestion was to remove the reference as the abstract is related to their novel contribution to the problem, not a place to cite other papers! Kindly reconsider this. If they don’t find the repetition, I suggest to use a professional text editor, that might help.
Their approach related to the introduction is flabbergasting. My concerns were about the manner in which the information is presented. It was not a suggestion to change, it was a request so it is clearer when reading the written information. I will have to reiterate; this is not debatable. They need to improve it.
Apparently, the authors are not keen in performing any changes to their paper. The paper is too big. 28 pages of a regular paper it is too much. This is not up for discussion. Put the section as supplementary information or remove it, or reduce in some way the dimension of the paper.
With respect to Fig 6. I highly recommend to authors to take the observation serios. You have 3 representations (black, grey and yellow) on the graph! Only two are described in the Legend. Why is it so difficult to see this? I am well aware of the positioning of the legend, it is incomplete! The legend does not transfer from one Figure to another. This is not how it works.
The paper is not ready for publication. I do not recommend it for publication in this form.
Author Response
Our response to the reviewer's comment is attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
