Hi Axel, there is a second report, which contain some minor comments. We have 3 months to send back our paper. I have to check that paper, what they recommended. Could we have a zoom call on Monday? I wish you a pleasant day. Best regards, Patrik ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Astronomy & Astrophysics Date: Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 03:40 Subject: AA/2020/38564: referee report To: 19/11/2020 Dr Patrik Jakab patrik.jakab94@gmail.com Our Ref. : AA/2020/38564 Dear Dr Jakab, Your revised paper "The effect of a dynamo-generated field on the Parker wind" was submitted to a referee who recommends some further, substantive revision (see enclosed report). Please take the referee's comments and suggestions into account in revising your work and send us the new version (in referee format and in printer format) at your earliest convenience. Instructions for resubmission can be found at address https://mms-aanda.obspm.fr/is/aa/resubmit_a_paper.php. Your author ID number is 32789. - In your cover letter, please indicate precisely all the changes made in the revised version. Please also include your detailed responses keyed to the items in the report. - Mark all the changes clearly (using boldface or latexdiff) in your manuscript. The deadline for the submission of your revised version is three months. With best regards, steve Steven N. Shore A&A Editor ------------------- Referee Report The authors have diligently addressed all of my comments from the initial draft. I have only a few minor comments that the authors should address before I can recommend this paper for publication. Comments: For the Figure 2 y-axis label, perhaps just put “Field Strength”. As it is very uncommon to leave an axis unlabelled. Page 8 “the kinetic energy loss is particularly strong around the Alfen surface; see Figure 7.” – Alfven typo error. In Figure 10 the authors say the quantities plotted are an averaged Jdot, how exactly is this done? Do you follow the field line at theta=70deg and integrate the domain above and below? Or do you integrate the values in a cone above and below theta=70deg? I think the first method is the most applicable, because the use of a cone will truncate some of the flow as it diverges towards the equator and vice versa. Is this the cause of the sharp v-like structures in Figure 10? Often the AM flux along a magnetic field line is compared, rather than averaged values. See a recent example from Pantolmos & Matt 2017, where they compare the flow speed along different magnetic field lines (their Figure 3 and 4). Though in the authors’ case, I would indeed perform an average over the flow emanating above and below 70 degrees (but being careful to appropriately follow the boundary of these flows). Figure 11 is very informative. This, in addition to the extra discussion of the negative tangential wind speeds, makes the results of this work far easier to digest. I am still intrigued about the cause of the negative tangential wind speeds. Is this a result of non-radial flow at the stellar surface? If so, perhaps the lack of a “realistic” photosphere, or sufficient boundary conditions at this layer, is linked? It might be fitting to mention this in Section 3.8. I would be interested to hear the authors’ opinions on this, even if no text is added to the manuscript. Is it possible in Figure 16 to also show the solar case, as you reference Figure 10 in the text for comparison however this figure does not average over all latitudes (this would also reassure the reader that the global angular momentum-loss rate for the solar case is positive, despite the negative contributions at midlatitudes). Additionally, it would be informative to also plot the total angular momentum flux in Figure 16, which will show how steady the global angular momentum-loss rate is for a given snapshot in time.