Dear All,
I'd like to share my experience with our manuscript (theoretical concept) reviewing process. Currently, we are studying radiation shielding materials, particularly glass substances. The effect of different oxides and various glass types is under our scope. In literature, almost all researchers are trying to understand the same scope, as well. However, our recent paper submission was reviewed, and the reviewer concluded that the impact of heavy metal oxides has already been known, and no need to evaluate the manuscript for a possible publication. However, our paper did not only have radiation protection but also physical, mechanical, and optical properties.
What I am trying to ask you all is that this is a fair decision within radiation shielding studies? Is it not the correct way to investigate different glass types, as well as various oxide contributions in terms of theoretical radiation shielding parameters?
Thanks in advance for your valuable comments.
With warm regards.
Dear Recep Kurtulus ,
it is difficult to 'judge' the reviewers decision without kowing the title and the complete content of your paper.
With respect to the statement that the heavy elements mainly govern the x-ray attenuation/shielding, the reviewer is right.
Using the NIST/XCOM program you can easily calculate the energy dependence of the x-ray transmission of samples of any elemental composition. Here is to my opinion nothing new and surpring things are not expected. You know that.
But I must admit, that just rejecting the paper without suggestions for improvements is very harsh.
I think you should primarily focus, for example, on optical transmission properties and mechanical parameters with respect to strong x-ray exposure and similar things. The degree of shielding may be a parameter....and make this clear in the title, abstract and introduction
Dear Gerhard Martens
I appreciate your interest in my question. My intention is not to judge the reviewer, but to try to understand the idea behind this decision. Of course, the statement of the heavy-metal oxide effect on improving radiation shielding properties is correct. However, the statement of "these all can be predicted without applying for any program, software, etc" is not correct, for me. Nevertheless, our paper consisted of physical, optical, mechanical, thermal, and radiation shielding properties within the theoretical concept. Yet again, your thoughts are very valuable for our future studies.
What is the result? This is why your paper rejected, you should focus to get applicable conclusion
Dear Hosam M Gomaa
Many thanks for your kind response. This paper was rejected because of the reviewer comments here. However, we made little revisions to our paper and submitted it to another journal. All three reviewers agreed to the publication after voluntary minor revisions. What I am trying to discuss with you all is whether such an evaluation is correct or not. Or may it be evaluated based on findings or novelty, rather than commenting in a way that it has been already known that HMOs aided to the improvements, so no need to evaluate?
Dear Recep Kurtulus ,
thanks for the feedback that finally another journal accepts your paper (minor revisions made); congratulations....
It may be due to different scopes of the journals when one journal for example more focusses on some kind of 'novelty' and the other journal does not.
Dear Drs and Profs, i think maybe the parameters are not enough, also the relationship between the radiation shielding efficiency and the structual of the materials. And then we can do the prediction for the glasses for application, or we can build a data library for all the shielding materials. Thus i think we can have many work to do. So let the reviwers agree with our.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science
- Materials
- Inorganic Materials
- Ceramics
- Glass