ATOM INDONESIA JOURNAL Associate Editor's Report
Article No. : 535
Title of Paper : Fungal Population and Aflatoxin Contamination on Stored Gamma Irradiated Nutmeg (Myristica fragrans) Kernels
Associate Editor Name : Jos Sulistyo Comment on Descriptions
Criteria Evaluation
Associate editor's evaluation
Yes No Comments
1. Originality of the article
Free of Plagiarism/Similarity (max
20%) v
New article/not yet Published (presented/ in proceeding max 30%)
v 2. Related to nuclear/atomic science
and technology v
3. References
The number of references at least 10, at most 20 for nonreview papers; at least 26 for review papers.
x The paper uses 24 references. Please reduce them by at least four.
The use of recent references 80 %
(maximum 5 years ago) x
Only 7 of 24 references (29 %) are from 2011 or later. Please add recent references/reduce less recent ones.
Type of the references (primarily,
secondary etc.) 85 % from journals x 16 of 24 = 67 %. Please add references from journals.
DOI reference (traceable) x
Please add DOIs to make the references more traceable. For instance, for [3] (Martins, Martins, and Bernardo), it would be
https://doi.org/10.1080/02652030120041
Reference style standard: Elsevier
numeric without title v
Please abbreviate the name of journals. Some examples are in
https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/B MCL_Abbreviations.pdf and
https://images.webofknowledge.com/WOKRS520 B4.1/help/WOS/A_abrvjt.html .
When reference has more than 3
Authors, write only 3 names, et al. x
Too many references do not follow this. For instance, for Ref. [19], the authors should only be given as: S.A. Okoth, B. Nyongesa, V. Joutsjoki, et al., and not all six should be named.
Article follows the Atom Indonesia
template and guidelines v
Table (clear, without vertical line) v
Figure (clear, min 300 dpi) x
None of the figures reaches 300 dpi (for example, Fig. 1a, size 1.3” × 1.3”, and resolution 351 × 354 px, thus its pixel density = resolution / size = 270
× 272 dpi). Please use higher-resolution images.
Final recommendation:
1. Continue review process [ ] 2. Return to the Author [ v ] 3. Reject [ ]
Comments:
The article should be returned to the authors to allow for the necessary improvements to be made.
