The Power Board of the KM3NeT Digital Optical Module: Design, Upgrade, and Production
, Eleni Androutsou 10, Mancia Anguita 11, Laurent Aphecetche 12, Miguel Ardid 13, Salva Ardid 13, Hicham Atmani 14, Julien Aublin 15, Francesca Badaracco 16, Louis Bailly-Salins 17, Zuzana Bardacova 18,19, Bruny Baret 15, Adriana Bariego 4, Suzan Basegmez Du Pree 20, David M. Benoit 24, Vincent Bertin 5, Simone Biagi 25, Markus Boettcher 26, Jihad Boumaaza 14, Raffaele Buompane 6,23, David Calvo 4, Paolo Castaldi 21,33, Marco Circella 38, Stephane Colonges 15, Giacomo Cuttone 25, Els de Wolf 20,30, Antonio Diaz 11, Dídac Diego-Tortosa 25, Alba Domi 35, Evangelia Drakopoulou 10, Sara Rebecca Gozzini 4, Robert Lahmann 35, Giuseppina Larosa 25, Fabio Longhitano 1, Annarita Margiotta 21,22, Christos Markou 10, Fabio Marzaioli 6,23, Lizeth Morales Gallegos 6,23, Michele Morga 38, Abdelilah Moussa 27, Paolo Musico 16, Veronica Oliviero 6,7, Daniele Paesani 25, Giuliano Pellegrini 21, Mathieu Perrin-Terrin 5, Rebekah Pestes 15, Vlad Popa 29, Gilles Quemener 17, Diego Real 4,*, Francisco Salesa Greus 4,23, Agustín Sánchez Losa 4, Johannes Schumann 35, Fedor Šimkovic 19, Bernardino Spisso 6, Maurizio Spurio 21,22, Antonin Vacheret 17, Hans van Haren 55, Salvatore Viola 25, Harold Yepes Ramirez 13, Juan de Dios Zornoza 4, add
Show full author list
Jiří Janda
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis review report is for the manuscript title 'The Power Board of the KM3NeT Digital Optical Module: design, upgrade, and production'. The list of authors is not provided in the manuscript.
In the manuscript, the KM3NeT's power board is being upgraded to provide more reliability to the goal of underwater neutrino telescopes. The manuscript can be found online at https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.14872
The following are comments for the authors to address:
- An overview (such as a block diagram) on how and which devices the power board input and output are connected to can be shown.
- The actual number/figure in the manuscript can be explicit. For example, line 7, 252, 302
- In the Conclusion section. The KM3NeT is being rolled up. Any future work in the pipeline that the readers can expect?
- The manuscript relies on past work to explain its development and upgrade. However, the list of references has too many self-citations. The authors are advised to make an extensive literature review to relate relevant work to support and explain the proposed upgrade effort.
- The author contributions section should document authors who contributed to this manuscript and on which part of the manuscript work.
- Consider using the Funding section to list the funding agencies.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for the review. Find our answer attached.
Best regards,
Diego
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors, the manuscript „The Power Board of the KM3NeT Digital Optical Module: design, upgrade, and Production “ is some sort of review of designing, testing, and upgrading the power board (PB) that will be used in neutrino telescopes.
The article summarizes the need for this PB, as well as the main requests that resulted in the first design, which was, after a few tests, upgraded to the final version. All main aspects of the PB are mentioned and explained. Furthermore, outputs of the main tasks of stability and reliability were presented resulting in the outcome that the expected failure rate of boards after the total KM3NeT operation time will be lower than 10%.
The article is well written, without any major mistakes, and the structure is appropriate. Since there is no experimental part, that can be reviewed and the article covers the major points of the research, I suggest accepting the article.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Find our answer attached.
Best regards,
Diego
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis technical report presents the design and test, as well as production constraints, of a electronic power board for use in the underwater neutrino observatory being assembled in the Mediterranean sea, in particular for use to power the so called Digital Optical Module composed of 3D light detector array. No major novelty is considered in designing the electronics but the choice of the components and circuitry seems to be sound and approapriate and well as the testing performed that validates the quality and suitability for the task of the board build. Therefore, inspite the relatively low scientific relevance of the paper, I believe it is technicaly sound and the paper can be published in current form (a few typos can surely be easily corrected...)
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Find our answer attached.
Best regards,
Diego
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is the second review report for the manuscript title 'The Power Board of the KM3NeT Digital Optical Module: design, upgrade, and production' led by first author Sebastiano Aielloa.
The authors have kindly revised the initial manuscript and submitted a cover letter to address the comments from the first review report.
1) Based on the earlier feedback regarding high self-citations, additional papers have been included in the manuscript's references. However, the number of self-citations remains excessive. I would recommend that the authors review and revise these citations to ensure they are essential and not overly used. For example, line 43 'Central Logic Board (CLB) [5-7]', are the three papers covering distinct aspects, or do they overlap in addressing the same topic? Likewise applying this to the rest of the self-cited papers. At least 12 out of the 24 references are KM3NeT Collaborators.
2) Line 333, I trust that all the authors have reviewed and edited the papers.
Author Response
The authors thank the reviewer again for the comments and suggestions. The answer to the comments are detailed below:
This is the second review report for the manuscript title 'The Power Board of the KM3NeT Digital Optical Module: design, upgrade, and production' led by first author Sebastiano Aielloa.
The authors have kindly revised the initial manuscript and submitted a cover letter to address the comments from the first review report.
1) Based on the earlier feedback regarding high self-citations, additional papers have been included in the manuscript's references. However, the number of self-citations remains excessive. I would recommend that the authors review and revise these citations to ensure they are essential and not overly used. For example, line 43 'Central Logic Board (CLB) [5-7]', are the three papers covering distinct aspects, or do they overlap in addressing the same topic? Likewise applying this to the rest of the self-cited papers. At least 12 out of the 24 references are KM3NeT Collaborators.
The references have been reviewed following the recommendation of the reviewer and the repetitive ones have been removed. In particular there have been dropped: one reference about the DOM, two about the CLB, and two about reliability in KM3NeT, keeping the most relevant one.
2) Line 333, I trust that all the authors have reviewed and edited the papers.
Yes, this is the standard method in the Collaboration, where all the members participate in the review and edition of the manuscript before sending it to the journal.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is the third review report for the manuscript title 'The Power Board of the KM3NeT Digital Optical Module: design, upgrade, and production' led by first author Sebastiano Aielloa.
The authors have addressed all the comments from earlier review reports.
The publisher's production team will work with the authors to correct minor text and style.
