ATOM INDONESIA
Editor’s Report
Article No. : #470
Title of Paper : Fate of 137Cs Activity in the Sayung Waters, Demak, Indonesia Referee Name :
Comment on Descriptions 1. Title
[ ] Appropriate
[ X ] 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[ X ] No[ ] Is the relation to previous studies adequately stated?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Are the assumption(s) and/or method(s) described comprehensively?
Yes[ ] No[ ] Are the new results adequately emphasized?
Line # Referee’s Comments
1-2
The title should be slightly changed. The suggested title is “Behavior of 137Cs Activity in the Indonesian Sayung Waters”, since there are no data which suggest the long term fate of the Cs-137 observed in this research.
11
What does TOC stand for?
152-
166 The Author should clearly explain the methods especially for measuring the results 182 How did the author define uniformity?
178- 203
The first group showed that the Cs-137 activity in station 1 is higher than that of station 6 even though the speed current in station 1 is higher than the one in station 6. This is in contrast with the Cs-137 activity trend in group 2 in which the higher the speed current the lower the Cs-137 activity. Please explain in the text
232 It is written ...(Table 2). It should be ....(Table 3).
256-
259 Reference is needed here 276-
293
The R2 for figures 2 and 3 are very low? Please also include the error bars for Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 as they are experimental data. Please give explanations why the low levels of confidence occur, and what are the limitations of your experimental set up? You may need to do ANOVA or other statistical analysis to reject or accept the experimental data
448-
449 Please reproduce Fig.1 and apply bigger size especially for the-x and the-y axes Final comments and recommendations:
The title should be changed and the author need to give more explanations related the results
obtained especially related Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.
This paper is recommended to be [ ] Accepted without further revision [ ] Accepted with minor revision [ X ] Major Revision is required [ ] Rejected
