ATOM INDONESIA JOURNAL
Author’s Response toward Associate Editor's Report form
Article No. : #470
Title of Paper : Fate of 137Cs Activity in the Sayung Waters, Demak, Indonesia Associate Editor Name :
Criteria Evaluation
Associate editor's evaluation
Author’s Responses
Yes No Comments
1. Originality of the article
Free of
Plagiarism/Similarity (max 20%)
X
New article/not yet Published (presented/ in proceeding max 30%)
X
2. Related to nuclear/atomic
science and technology X
3. Reference
The number of references at
least 10 X
The use of recent references 80% (maximum 5 years ago)
A minimum of 22 references should be current (published within 5 years).
Please add more current references or reduce the number of references to account for the 80% current references requirement.
I have added references that published within 5 years and reduced references that published more than 5 years.
The total references that published within 5 years about 80%
Type of the references (primarily, secondary etc.) 85% from journal
X
Please include the page number for ref [1]
This reference is deleted, because it published in 2003 and changed with another.
Cross link reference
(traceable) X
Reference style standard:
Elsevier numeric without title
X
When reference has more than 3 Authors, write only 3 name, et al.
X
Refs [2,4,9,12,17,19,24]
have more than 3 authors, so please use et al instead of stating all the author names.
I have done according to this regulation.
Article follows the Atom Indonesia template and guidelines
X
Table (clear, without
vertical line) X
Figure (clear, min 300 dpi) X
Figure 1 is not clear and does not fit the available frame. Thus it requires resizing.
Figure 2(a) and (b):
please use bigger font size for R2 values so that they are more readable.
Figure 2(b): the decimal values in the y-axis should use points (.) instead of commas (,).
Similarly, Figure 3: the decimal values in the y- axis should use points (.) instead of commas (,).
Figure. 2 and 3 have been revised especially on using points (.)
Final recommendation:
1. Continue review process [ ] 2. Return to the Author [X]
3. Reject [ ]
Comments:
The authors should revise some issues as stated above before this manuscript is lodged for review process
I have revised all editor evaluatins.
Thank so much for your final recommendation
