lad3

main.tex

@@ -47,13 +47,13 @@ On behalf of the authors,\\
 
 We are actually not very familiar with Mathematica GLMT Scripts, however, fast review of this code revealed a number of significant differences:
 \begin{itemize}
-\item As it is published at \verb+http://photonicsdesign.jimdo.com/software/+ it does not provide any appropriate license condition, particularly it is not clear, is it valid to distribute this code, to modify it (e.g. to put your own model parameters), etc.
+\item As it is published at \verb+http://photonicsdesign.jimdo.com/software/+ it does not provide any appropriate license condition, particularly it is not clear, is it valid to distribute this code, to modify it (e.g. to put your own model parameters), to use it for academic or corporate research, etc.
 \item You need to buy Mathematica license first to use this script.
 \item This script do not provide near-field evaluation inside the particle, at least all provided examples do not have it.
 \item It does not use Mathematica ability to do arbitrary precision for calculation of Mie coefficients for multilayer sphere. Actually it reference our previous paper in CPC, and uses the same evaluation of spherical functions via series with the same error due to $N_{\mathrm{stop}}$ selection. 
 \end{itemize}
 
-To the best of our knowledge the only code available which provide similar posibilities is MSTM by Mackowski and Mishchenko. However, it uses T-matrix approach to do the evaluation and has no usage license defined. We actually had verified our code against MSTM results too, however, do not include them to the manuscript due to abovementioned license restrictions.
+Finally, we should point out that the authors of Mathematica GLMT started using Scattnlay and, at least the initial versions of their scripts, were heavily based on our code. Indeed, even now most of their varibles use exactly the same names than Scattnlay. Hence, it is safe to say that Mathematica GLMT is a derivative work of our code, even if both projects have diverged over time. To the best of our knowledge the only code available which provide similar posibilities is MSTM by Mackowski and Mishchenko. However, it uses T-matrix approach (which is conisderably less efficient for the case of concentric spheres) to do the evaluation and has no usage license defined. We  had actually verified our code against MSTM results too, however, we do not include them to the manuscript due to abovementioned license restrictions.
 
 \vspace{0.5em}
 \begin{tabular}[!H]{l|p{0.9\textwidth}}
@@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ We do concern the speed of our implementation, however, this is not the main poi
 TODO - stress novelty in the abstract, manuscript, and in the conclusion: 
 1) We provide explicit expressions for Mie coefficients inside the sphere.
 2) We suggest to use Ricatti-Bessel functions for vector spherical harmonics evaluations and prove the correctness of this approach.
+3) We verify the provided approach comparing to other codes and full-wave 3D simulation.
 
 \vspace{0.5em}
 \begin{tabular}[!H]{l|p{0.9\textwidth}}
@@ -75,13 +76,15 @@ TODO - stress novelty in the abstract, manuscript, and in the conclusion:
 
 We would like to thank the reviewer for finding, that just referencing our previous paper can lead to misunderstanding. We add to the manuscript after the corresponding reference ``reported recently [10]'' the following sentence `` using full-wave commercial 3D electromagnetic simulation software CST MWS[TODO add link to cst.com in references ]''
 
+We had to restrict ourselfs to core-shell case due to lack of analytic software, which allow (including usage statements in the software license) to do the simulation of multilayered sphere. The multilayered case was verified against full-wave simulation done with finite-element method using CST MWS and finite-difference time-domain method using Lumerical FDTD.
+
 \vspace{0.5em}
 \begin{tabular}[!H]{l|p{0.9\textwidth}}
 \quad & Also, in Fig. 2 they compare published and their results. But in all other figures they show only their results and refer to the literature for comparison. They should present all test and original results in the current manuscript.
 \end{tabular}
 \vspace{0.5em}
 
-TODO we do not compare with published result in Fig.2 - provide changed to the text.
+TODO we do not compare with published result in Fig.2, we have downloaded and run the referenced software - provide changed to the text.
 
 As for other figures, we do not have a permission to reprint figures from other journals, this way we can only provide referenced to them.
 
@@ -91,7 +94,7 @@ As for other figures, we do not have a permission to reprint figures from other
 \end{tabular}
 \vspace{0.5em}
 
-We have checked each and every program listed at ``Mie type codes'' section off Scattport here http://www.scattport.org/index.php/light-scattering-software/mie-type-codes before starting the development of our code. Most of listed codes re-implement Mie solution as it was published in classical book of Bohren and Huffman ``Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles'' (usually referenced ad BHMIE) or MIEV0 code by Wiscombe.  The original approaches that we were able to find were referenced in the manuscript as [11-18,22,23]. Note, that most of this solutions to not provide the ability to evaluate field distribution inside the particle and only cover the case of one (bulk sphere) or two (core-shell) layers in the particle.
+We have checked each and every program listed at ``Mie type codes'' section off Scattport here http://www.scattport.org/index.php/light-scattering-software/mie-type-codes before starting the development of our code. While really the list of software is very large, most of listed codes re-implement Mie solution as it was published in classical book of Bohren and Huffman ``Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles'' (usually referenced ad BHMIE) or re-implement MIEV0 code by Wiscombe.  The original approaches that we were able to find were referenced in the manuscript as [11-18,22,23]. Note, that most of this solutions to not provide the ability to evaluate field distribution inside the particle and only cover the case of one (bulk sphere) or two (core-shell) layers in the particle.
 
 We are totally agree with the reviewer, that it is a good idea to provide a GUI. However, adding GUI is a very time consuming task and we do not have any funding for this.  Actually, the code described in our previous publication has no GUI either, still that paper has more than 50 citations. So we should expect that this code and the manuscript are valuable and important even without GUI. In our first comment in this reply we have tried to cover the cases, when Mathematica usage is not beneficial.