k-Essence Inflation Evading Swampland Conjectures and Inflationary Parameters
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer did not give positive response on our report. However, we have improved our English as well as included contour plots of Planck observations data. We have observed that our results are well fitted with the Planck data in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors consider a rather timely issue, focusing on k-essence inflationary dynamics and how do these theories comply with the Planck observational data and with the Swampland criteria. K-essence theories are in the margin between GR and modified gravity and constitute the last frontier that one can extend the standard scalar field inflation and still remain in GR. I have some comments: Firstly, if remaining in k-essence theories, one should also discuss how these terms may or may not affect the reheating era. Do the authors know how do the k-inflation modifications may affect the total EoS parameter after the inflationary quasi-de Sitter attractor is reached? This may have a direct effect on the duration of the inflationary era. Secondly, I would suggest that the abreviations should be used when necessary and not for all expressions. The result is confusing. For well known expressions, like Friedmann-Robertson-Walker FRW or GR, abbreviations cn be used, but not for every expression in the text. Some citation update is needed, the swampland criteria were further discussed in 2012.01312,2105.11935. The authors could mention these works in their reference list.
Author Response
Separate response file is being attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have tried to improve the manuscript but still this has not been improved. I still don't understand how the authors argue that this is a work on observational constraints; they have not used cmb from planck 2018 to constrain the parameters. The contour plot that the authors have given, are probably not coming from the MCMC chains. Is it so? if yes then show me the triangular plots for all the datasets that the authors have mentioned. In summary, i think in order to pass this paper the authors need to justify why they claim that the paper contains observational constraints. On the other hand, still there are many typos and grammatical mistakes.
Author Response
We have revised the manuscript as per suggestions of referee and editor.
