English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

It has been pointed out in arXiv:2211.17057 that our recent (published) papermight be revised, due to an incorrect evaluation of the diffusion coefficients,$D(E)$, employed in the calculations. Unfortunately, there is no indication asto where the incorrectness might be. Here we offer the opportunity to be morespecific, by providing the community with the whole description of theequations involved in the calculation of $D(E)$, which is missing in the {\ttarXiv} note. In this context, we mention that no \textit{ad hoc}parameterisation has been used in our paper. Furthermore, any assumption on theinjection mechanisms is explicitly described in the paper as an input factorand is obviously part of the modelisation procedure, hence the final outcome issubject to it. Finally, we discuss in a more broad context what, in thiscalculation of the diffusion coefficient, we believe is the key message.

Diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission in Cygnus X: Comments to Yan & Pavaskar