Reply to "Comment on 'Unconventional enhancement of ferromagnetic interactions in Cd-doped GdFe$_2$Zn$_{20}$ single crystals studied by ESR and $^{57}$Fe M\"ossbauer spectroscopies' "

The $R{T}_{2}{\mathrm{Zn}}_{20}$ family offers an incredible versatility to tune diverse ground states through small modifications of their composition. In our recent publication [Phys. Rev. B 102, 144420 (2020)] we have reported an enhancement of the FM transition temperature due to negative chemical pressure from 86 to 96 K for $x=0.0$ and $x=1.4$, respectively, with an also unexpected, however, suspicious reduction of the effective and saturation magnetic moment that was inconsistent with our ESR data [Phys. Rev. B 102, 144420 (2020)]. In a comment of our work by Canfield (preceding paper [Phys. Rev. B 103, 176401 (2021)]), they have confirmed our finding about the enhancement of the FM temperature, however, with appreciable differences in the $M$($H$) and $M$($T$) curves for the Cd doped samples. We agree with their analysis of the magnetization data, the saturation of those samples is between $6\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}{\ensuremath{\mu}}_{B}$ and $7\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}{\ensuremath{\mu}}_{B}$ instead of $4\phantom{\rule{0.16em}{0ex}}{\ensuremath{\mu}}_{B}$ as we have reported. It is indeed likely that we have used a mass value of the measured samples that includes Cd-doped $\mathrm{Gd}{\mathrm{Fe}}_{2}{\mathrm{Zn}}_{20}$ and a second-phase contamination of the non-magnetic Zn flux (please observe the XRD data in the original paper [Phys. Rev. B 102, 144420 (2020)]). Therefore, we agree with the comment by Canfield et al. (preceding paper [Phys. Rev. B 103, 176401 (2021)]) about the thorough analysis of the $M$($T$) and $M$($H$) for the Cd-doped samples (Fig. 2 of their Comment). The erratum clarifies and corrects [Phys. Rev. B 103, 179903(E) (2021)].