Electronic and Magnetic Properties of FeCl3 Intercalated Bilayer Graphene
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Generally the work is interesting and some minor issues should be revised.
1. The introduction part is too long and can be shortened.
2. All the references should be checked.
3. In fig.3, you can remove the sections when plotting by VESTA.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this work, the unrestricted density functional theory (DFT) with the PBE+U functional were employed to investigate the electronic and magnetic properties of FeCl3-intercalated bilayer graphene (BLG). A detailed introduction is presented, interpreting the significance of this work. Theoretical methodologies are rationally provided, followed by clear results and discussion, leading to solid conclusions. I therefore recommend acceptance of this manuscript for publication in C.
Here are my two comments for this manuscript.
1. Please provide references.
2. Binding energy, bond length, and intercalation energy are discussed in this manuscript. I suggest that this information should be either added in Table 1 or presented in Appendix table.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this work, the authors have studied the electronic and magnetic properties of FeCl3-intercalated bilayer graphene (BLG) and stage-2 intercalated graphite via PBE+U potential in DFT. The first message through this investigation is finding the p-doped graphene phase. The second one refers to the ferromagnetic (BLG) and antiferromagnetic (stage-2 intercalated graphite) phases, which both features are robust against pressure. The method is standard and the results sound interesting. Thus, I can recommend the paper for publication after addressing the following comments:
-- My main concern is the stability of structures. To confirm that all stackings are stable, the authors should show a phonon dispersion diagram without negative phonon frequency.
The authors should check the text to clean it from typos, grammatical errors, etc. For example, there is a typo in the titles of (c) and (d) panels of Fig. 1. They should be FM and AFM.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept
The language should be improved before final decision by the editor
