Dear Chairman, editor and reviewer,

Thank you for your careful reading and valuable suggestions.
According to your comments, we have revised our manuscript as uploaded. The revised manuscript has been corrected according to your suggestions and proof-read. We hope this revision will be accepted for publication.

Thank you, 
Makoto Tashiro on behalf of authors. 


On 2015/05/06 23:56, paolo.davanzo@brera.inaf.it wrote:> Dear MAKOTO  TASHIRO,
> 
> please revise your contribution (PoS(SWIFT 10)164) according to the following comments and resubmit it by May 26. Thanks.
> 
> 
> ###############
>   Major comments
> --------------
> If possible, I would suggest the author to ask an English native collegue to
> carefully read and correct the paper.
> 
> The Bibliography is not following the publisher rules:
> Names, with initials, in roman character, title and journal name in italic, journal volume in
> bold, publication year in brackets, page number. If applicable, arXiv reference (in brackets when
> the paper is published). See:http://pos.sissa.it/PoSauthmanual.pdf
> 
> Minor comments
> --------------
> 
> Abstract
> ========
> Line 7:
> "With Suzaku/WAM, we sampled seven of well isolated,..."
> In your previous paper you examined 6 GRBs showing 7 FRED-shaped pulses. I suggest to modify this
> sentence a follow:
> "With Suzaku/WAM we sampled 6 bright GRBs with 7 well isolated pulses with no power-law decay but
> exhibiting fast-rise exponential-decay (FRED)[2]."
> 
> Section 2
> =========
> Line 4:
> "or decay phase, To reduce.." ==> "or decay phase. To reduce..."
> Line 10/11
> "..in wide bands are to be..." ==> "..over a wide band has to be...
> Line 1, last paragraph:
> "..with criteria: such as (1).." ==> "..by using the following criteria: (1).."
> Line 3, last paragraph: employ ==> selected
> 
> Section 3
> =========
> Page 3, line 4 from the bottom:
> "Although 6 of 10 energy indices γ accept the..." ==> "Although 6 out of 10 energy indices γ
> are consistent with the..."
> 
> Section 4.1
> ===========
> Line 3 after the formula:
> "...over energy E0 , χ 2 /d.o.f. in Table 1. The derived time indices..." ==>
> "...over energy E0 , χ 2 /d.o.f. are reported in Table 1 together wiht the derived time
> indices....". Then remove the following "(Table 1)" at the end of the sentence.
> Then the following sentence:
> "These accept the expected ..." ==> "These values agrees with the expected..."
> 
> Section 4.2
> ===========
> Page 4, last two lines:
> "..does not accept expected value (η = -2/3).." ==> "is not consistent with the expected
> value (η = -3/2).."
> "..which allows slow.." ==> "agrees with the expected slow...."
> 
> Page 5, line 2:
> " GRB 100707B [2]. , The obtained time index are consistent with the expected..." ==> " GRB
> 100707B [2]. The obtained time index is consistent with the one expected..."
> 
> Section 5
> =========
> Page 5, line 2:
> "..following similar study with Suzaku/WAM." ==> "..following a similar study previuosly
> perfomrd on Suzaku/WAM data."
> 
> Line 4: I suggest to add the error to the -0.3 energy index. This would better show its
> consistency with the -0.5 value.
> Line 5: "..of 6 of 10 FREDs allow.." ==> "..of 6 out of 10 FREDs suggest.."
> Line 5/6: "..although those of 4 do not.." ==> "..while the remaining 4 do not.."
> Page 6, line 2:
> "..the 7 WAM observed FREDs decay study [2]." ==> "..following the same approach as for the study
> of the 7 FREDs observed by WAM[2]."
> 
> Line 2/3
> ".. with GRBM, and the behavior of 2 FREDs.." ==> ".. by the GRBM model. The behavior of 2
> FREDs (add the GRB names here...).."
> Line 4: I would delete: "in decaying turn over energy (E0)."
> Line 4: "Although the rest one is well reproduced with GRBM.." ==> "Although the third one (GRB#)
> is well reproduced by the GRBM model..."
> Line 2 from the bottom: "...thin plasma emission models,..." ==> "...thin plasma emission
> model,.."
> Last line: "..the case of GRB 081224, well reproduced.." ==> "..the case of GRB 081224, which
> is well reproduced.."
> 
> FIGURE
> ======
> Figure 1: I would enlarge it a bit if possible.
> Caption: "row" ==> "panel" (three times)
> 
> Figure 2:  Please explain in the caption what are the solid dark and grees lines
> Caption, line 1:"..The right 3 events.." ==> "..The 3 events on the right (red ones).."
> Line 2: "..are for the.." ==> "..are the.."
> 
> Figure 3:
> "Time resolved spectra and their data to the best fitted GRBM ratios of GRB..." ==> "Time
> resolved spectra and their ratio to the best fitted GRBM models for GRB.."
> ###############
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Paolo