Partial Photoionization Cross Sections of Chromium from the Ground and Excited States
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The MS reports-on a careful BSR study of the non-trivial topic of the PI of neutral Cr. It shows that previous R-matrix calculations underestimate at higher energies due to inner-shell transitions that were not included previously. It is hard to find fault with the MS. My only query is why the authors use the historic ASYPCK for the outer region? For electron-impact excitation they use STGF. Why not use STGB, STGBF from the same R-matrix outer-region suite?Author Response
We thank the referee for positive estimation of the present calculations.
In response to referee's query about the "historic" ASYPCK program:
The ASYPCK program turned out to be very convenient and flexible to be
incorporated in BSR code as subroutine. It allows us not to use external codes
such STGBF, what would be requires many changes in the logic of the BSR codes.
We are planning to replace ASYPCK program on more computationally effective version, or switch to STGBF if we find it convenient.
We believe no changes are required in the MS text in this respect.
Reviewer 2 Report
Neutral and singly ionized atoms contribute massively to stellar spectra, yet the neutrals and almost-neutrals are extremely challenging to atomic structure theory because of the limited role of the Coulomb field of the nucleus and the complexity of the many-electron shell. It is a worthy exercise to provide quality results from carefully executed computations, in particular as experimental data are scarce.
I am listing clerical and other shortcomings or errors as they appear when reading.
Line 33, delete the first "the"
Line 40, delete "were"
Line 41, interest in this energy range
Line 47, photoionization
Line 49, "region" to me means something two-dimensional to reign over; "range" seems more appropriate to some one-dimensional entity.
Line 63, an open question
Line 64, with an open 3d shell
I am aware that in Russian there are no such articles as "a" and "the", but in English there are - authors, please check the whole text. I'll stop caring for the missing/surplus articles from here on. Otherwise the language is fine.
The work is thoughtfully executed and presented. It provides a clear improvement over earlier studies, in particular one of the previous key papers by Nahar. The comparison is understandable. The table entries are presented with a very reasonable number of decimals, considerate of the limitations in accuracy. Highly laudable.
References:
Ref. 2 has plenty of Slavic "i" characters wrongly coded, try \'i for a non-perfect, but reasonable workaround.
Ref. 4, first author, replace initial comma by initial fullstop; commas are needed after many surnames
Ref. 5, Schröder (coding Schr\"oder)
Ref. 21 and 22, your own coauthor's name is "Froese Fischer" (as spelled correctly in ref. 20)
Author Response
We thank the referee for positive estimation of the present calculations and
for very careful reading of the text.
We make all editorial changes in the text suggested by the referee.
They mainly concern the articles "a" and "the", which as correctly noted by the referee are the main problem for the Russian speaking authors.
We also try to read all text to find similar errors.
No other corrections except the Gramma errors were made.
