Solar Orbiter SWA Observations of Electron Strahl Properties Inside 1 AU
, Joel Baby Abraham 1, Georgios Nicolaou 1, Daniel Verscharen 1, Philippe Louarn 2 and Timothy S. Horbury 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Now, the revised paper merits publication in Universe Journal.
Author Response
We thank the referee for his/her reconsideration of our manuscript and appreciate the recommendation that the revised paper merits publication in the Universe Journal.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
1. I strongly recomend to add the words in abtract line 4, to improve a quick understanding of auhrors. the "strahl" eneergy --> observation of the super thermal electrons (the strahl ) electrons in the energy range.... YOu hav eprovided it in line 331. Too late
2. Still several words are necessary to be explained inline 492.
RTN, PS, PSP ; they are missing.
3. typos; line 192, 234
Author Response
We thank the referee for his/her careful reading of our manuscript. We have addressed all 3 of the points raised:
1) We agree this could have been described more clearly and thus have modified the description of the energy range in the abstract along the lines suggested by the referee. The relevant sentence is changed from the original:
'In this article we report early nominal phase observations of electrons in the ’strahl’ energy range (> few 10’s eV), and .....'
to a revised version:
'In this article we report early nominal phase observations of the suprathermal electron population at energies ≥ 70 eV (representative of the ’strahl’ population), and .....'
We hope this satisfactorily addresses the referees concern.
2) We have added the terms RTN and PSP to the abbreviations list. The term PS is actually a typo and should have been PA, which is already in the list. We have corrected the typo (at line 253).
3) We have corrected the typos at lines 192, 234.
We appreciate the inputs of the referee in helping improve the manuscript.
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
The manuscript is well written and structured. The subject is of considerable interest and timeliness. The results are presented clearly and appear solid to me. In my opinion, the manuscript is suitable for publication in Universe as it is.
Reviewer 2 Report
Attached please find my comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
