ATOM INDONESIA JOURNAL
Author’s Responses toward Associate Editor's Report Form
Article No. : 475
Title of Paper : Shielding Design for the PGNAA Experimental Facility at Kartini Reactor Comment on Descriptions
Criteria Evaluation
Associate editor's evaluation
Author’s Responses
Yes No Comments
1. Originality of the article
Free ofPlagiarism/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. Reference
The number of references atleast 10 v
The use of recent references 80% (maximum 5 years ago)x
Out of 13 references, excluding the online ones, 8 satisfy the requirements (61 %)
The percentage has been increased by replacing and removing 3 referaences.
Type of the references (primarily, secondary etc.) 85% from journalx In total, only 7 of 13 sources (54
%) are from journals.
The percentage has been increased by replacing and removing 3 referaences.
Cross link reference(traceable) x
Adding DOI references, if there are available, would have been helpful. For instance, for [4], the DOI identifier is
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18811 248.2007.9711580
DOI has been added to some references
Reference style standard:Elsevier numeric without title
x
Titles and ending pages should not have been given. Titles of journals and conference proceedings titles should be properly abbreviated. One of the available information sources on title abbreviations is
http://www.efm.leeds.ac.uk/~ma rk/ISIabbr/ .
Has been corrected.
When reference has more than 3 Authors, write only 3 name, et al.x
For [4], “Et Al” (incorrect capitalization – should be all lowercase instead, and in this journal italicized) is given after just one author's name. For [10], all six authors are named;
instead, should name only the first three and use “et al” in place of the rest.
Has been corrected
xThe captions/titles below some pictures use “Fig.” (for instance, Fig. 1), but some others use
“Figures” (such as Figure 3).
Should be “Fig.” for the captions of/below all pictures.
Has been corrected
Table (clear, withoutvertical line) x The tables have vertical lines –
they should not.
Has been corrected
Figure (clear, min 300 dpi) v Final recommendation:1. Continue review process [ ] 2. Return to the Author [ x ] 3. Reject [ ]
Comments:
The paper should be returned to the author to allow for the necessary improvements to be made.
Correction has been made as much as possible. Please let me know is further
corrections are still needed.
