10/31/2019 Review Form Response
http://aij.batan.go.id/index.php/aij/sectionEditor/viewReviewFormResponse/955/1298 1/3
REVIEW FORM RESPONSE
Referee's Report >>>
1. The Title is Appropriate * [1] Completely Correct Comment
2. Abstract
The Content and Length of the abstract are appropriate * [1] Completely Correct
Comment
3. Main Text
The results are important to be reported * [2] Partly Correct
Comment
Please see reviewers comments
The paper is of high scientific quality (scientifically sound) * [2] Partly Correct
Comment
10/31/2019 Review Form Response
http://aij.batan.go.id/index.php/aij/sectionEditor/viewReviewFormResponse/955/1298 2/3
The paper is well organized (experimental/theory/results/conclusion) * [1] Completely Correct
Comment
The length of the paper is appropriate to the content * [1] Completely Correct
Comment
The references are adequate in complete / consist of 85% primary references and recent journals *
[1] Completely Correct Comment
22 out of 23 are primary references.
The English is alright * [1] Excellent
10/31/2019 Review Form Response
http://aij.batan.go.id/index.php/aij/sectionEditor/viewReviewFormResponse/955/1298 3/3
Comment
Some mistakes in typo and punctuation.
Final Comments To the Author *
This manuscript/paper is written in good English, however, there are still some mistakes.
Please pay attention to the spelling, punctuation, and consistency in writing the symbol.
In this experiment, the high energy radiation i.e. The proton and deuteron energies used were between 1 and 30 MeV. What is your consideration in selecting the energy below 10 MeV, since it seems contradictive with your statement that nuclear reaction occurred at high energy such as 10 MeV as written at line 154 157? Please explain it?
These results are more valuable if you can add/compared with other related results that have been done by other researchers. for example possibility nuclear reaction, the target thickness, etc
the conclusion is too long sentences. please make in shorter sentences which point out the primary results. no discussion needed in the conclusion
For more details, please see the reviewer's comments and make revisions according to the comments
Confidential Comments to the EIC
This Paper is recommended to be * Accepted without further revision Accepted with minor revision Major Revision is required Rejected
Close
* Denotes required field
