+Thank you very much for informing us about the status of our
+manuscript.
+
+The referee
+
+ i) has reservations about the methodology used in the present work
+ ii) requests a clarification of the relation of the present
+ manuscript to a previous submission of ours (BA11443)
+iii) suggests to possibly combine some account of the present
+ work with the previous submission BA11443.
+
+What concerns (i), the classical potential molecular dynamics used in
+the present work certainly has limitations. Precisely in order to
+quantify these limitations, a comparison is made with ab initio
+calculations as well as earlier first-principles work (BA11443).
+Despite the shortcomings of classical potential simulations, they
+nevertheless provide valuable insight in the physical mechanism of
+silicon carbide precipitation on length and time scales which are not
+accessible to more accurate ab initio techniques. A detailed response
+to the referee's concerns is given below.
+
+Concerning (ii) and (iii), the ab initio work BA11443 is a
+self-contained and comprehensive manuscript, which already now has an
+appreciable length. It is a first-principles study on defects in
+carbon-implanted silicon. In contrast, the present study mainly
+applies classical potentials to model the SiC precipitation in Si on
+large time and length scales. While the material is the same, the
+methodologies applied and the questions addressed in the present work
+and in BA11443 largely differ. For this reason, and because both
+manuscripts already contain a substantial amount of information, we
+believe it is not in the interest of the readers to combine the two
+manuscripts. Perhaps it would be good idea to make BA11443 available
+to the referee of the present work?
+
+Please find below a reply to the comments of the referee, which we
+hope will satisfactorily answer his concerns on the suitability of our
+work for publication in the Physical Review B.