Round 1 After a deep investigation, I don’t consider the work valuable for publication in this journal. I haven’t found any character of novelty. The advances respect to the previous reports are just referred to a lower quantity of reagents and/or lower reaction times, in addition to some mechanistic corrections. I think that the level of this journal is too high to consider these kind of improvements. The catalyst used is neither a discovery nor a breakthrough for this kind of reaction, how it is rightly reported by the authors in the main text.

Round 2 After a careful analysis of the revised version and related replies to comments, the direction of this paper now is clear. The scope of this work relies on the synthesis of novel pharmacologically interesting enantiopure compounds. From this point of view, the article might be scientifically interesting, but it must be absolutely correlated to a Supporting Information file, including : NMR spectra, HPLC chromatograms with the relative percentages of the peaks, and other experimental material useful for the scope. Without this file this work loses of importance.