ATOM INDONESIA JOURNALAuthor's Response toward Associate Editor's ReportArticle No. : # 1038Title of Paper: Texture Characterization of Duplex Stainless Steel 2205 using Neutron Diffraction MethodComment on DescriptionsCriteria EvaluationAssociate editor'

ATOM INDONESIA JOURNAL

Author's Response toward Associate Editor's Report Article No. : # 1038

Title of Paper : Texture Characterization of Duplex Stainless Steel 2205 using Neutron Diffraction Method Comment on Descriptions

Criteria Evaluation

Associate editor's evaluation

Author’s Response

Completely

correct Partly correct

not Correct

at all Comments

1. Originality of the article

 Free of Plagiarism/Similarity

(max 20%)  27 Percent Similarities have been reduced

 New article/not yet Published (presented/ in proceeding max

30%)



To my knowledge, it is a new article yes

2. Related to nuclear/atomic

science and technology



The method used to analysis is nuclear technology yes 3. References

 The number of references at least 10, at most 20 for nonreview papers; at least 26 for review papers.

 There are 22 ref 28 reference

 The use of recent references

80 % (maximum 5 years ago)



Only 10 out of 22 (less than 50%) are new 21/28 (75% ) are new

 Type of the references (primarily, secondary etc.) 85

% from journals



17 out of 22 (77%) are journal 23/28 ( 82%) are journal.

 DOI reference (traceable)  No comment -



Reference style standard:

Elsevier numeric without title  No comment Reference style has been changed as AIJ

references format



When reference has more than

3 Authors, write only 3 names,



^{No comment} More than three authors have been write by et al

et al.

 Article follows the Atom Indonesia template and guidelines

 No comment Article follows the Atom Indonesia template

 Table (clear, without vertical

line)



^{No comment ok}

 Figure (clear, min 300 dpi)



No comment ok



Is the Level of English appropriate? (Excellent, Adequate, poor)

adequate Final recommendation:

1. Continue review process [ ] 2. Return to the Author [  ] 3. Reject [ ]

Comments:

The abstract only concisely reports the outcomes of the research (too much numeric) so that general readers seem do not know exactly what the paper is about. Conclusion is also did not described here.

The abstract has been revised according to

the reviewer's request