ATOM INDONESIA
Editor’s Report
Article No. : #475
Title of Paper : Shielding Design for the PGNAA Experimental Facility at Kartini Reactor Referee Name : Takanori SUGAWARA
Comment on Descriptions 1. Title
[ x ] Appropriate [ ] Should be changed
2. Abstract
Yes[ x ] No[ ] Is the length reasonable?
Yes[ x ] No[ ] Is it an appropriate summary of the content?
3. Main Text
Yes[ x ] No[ ] Is there anything new in this work?
Yes[ ] No[ x ] Is the relation to previous studies adequately stated?
Yes[ x ] No[ ] Are the assumption(s) and/or method(s) described comprehensively?
Yes[ x ] No[ ] Are the new results adequately emphasized?
Line # Referee’s Comments
34 The reference for Kartini reactor is necessary.
40 It’s hard to understand the geometry of each beam port. A figure to explain these is required.
68 The reference for MCNPX is necessary.
95 The referee just wants to know the temperature of this geometry and the melting point of the paraffin. (no need to add these to the article)
Table
1 It’s better to add the number density of the paraffin.
Table 1 &
others
It is required to adjust the decimal alignment.
127 Why did the author employ 10 % correction factor? It is necessary to describe the reason.
172 It’s hard to understand where the position of 60 cm is. The size should be added to the figure.
Fig. 4 Thickness is which thickness? ‘b’ shown in Fig. 1?
Fig. 4
X-axis is neutron energy. Then, the referee guessed neutron flux would decrease as the energy increased. But, the result showed the flux increased although the energy increased (ex. Thickness = 50cm, E=4-6 MeV). Why?
186 &
Fig. 4 The case of 80 cm thickness is not shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4
& 5 What position flux and dose rate are presented in these figures?
224 It’s hard to understand each position. The size should be added to the figure.
Fig. 7 What position dose rate is presented?
318 &
323
The referee could not find these references. So, the referee could not confirm the source term was correct or not.
Final comments and recommendations:
The referee thinks there are many terms which should be revised in this article.
This paper is recommended to be [ ] Accepted without further revision [ ] Accepted with minor revision [ x ] Major Revision is required [ ] Rejected
