注意点を熟読の上、ご利用ください
論文への全体的なコメント
- 論文の概要について
扱う・取り組む、明らかにする、解釈する、・・・など
- 論文を読んでの感想
その１：好意的な意見（素晴らしい、興味深い、貢献度が高い、新しい、・・・など）
その２：否定的な意見（問題有り、説得力なし、論文ではなく報告書だ、・・・など）
その３：その他（ほかの雑誌へ投稿した方が良い、・・・など）
- 査読の結果について（微修正で可、大幅修正、不可、・・・など）
- 剽窃（盗用）（注意）
Specific Comments編はこちら
扱う・取り組む:
- This manuscript addresses an important technical issue in the interpretation of NAMI spectra for trivalent kinzoku ions in aqueous solution.
- The examination of multi-electron excitation effects on these analyses is a welcome addition, as these effects can cause significant systematic errors when analyzing the NAMI spectra of a number of elements, yet these are rarely addressed.
- This study deals with spectroscopic characterization of metal associated with M- and M oxides.
- This paper deals with surface complexes of various metal ions sorbed on M
hydroxides and M oxides, which has large impacts on the solid-water distribution of metal ions in natural aquatic systems.
- This is an excellent paper dealing with the regional geochemistry of an area of complex geology and diverse land use, including major urban centers.
- This paper is carefully treating the multiple excitation effect observed in the NAMI spectra, which may affect the NAMI parameters obtained without the removal of the interference.
示す：
- This manuscript presents very interesting data on geochemistry of marine sediments off central Japan that are clearly of broad interest and deserve publication.
- They presents a careful and thorough analysis of metal coordination environment using NAMI spectroscopy.
- This manuscript presents good quality results of a speciation study focused on Metal in different Japanese sediments.
- In general, the manuscript presents an appropriately-sized piece of a larger data set measured by Taro et al. that included heavy metal, with comparison also to data for aqueous ions presented.
- The manuscript presents to investigate the transport processes of elements.
- The study provides an important contribution to world-wide regional genso mapping, especially, in a young island arc setting.
- The general purpose of the publication is to provide a standard method for the determination of metal speciation in environmental matrices or solids.
報告する・記述する：
- The manuscript submitted by Hanako et al. describes the interaction between metal with MOOH and MO2 as determined by NAMI spectroscopy. Specifically, the influence of multi-electron excitation in the measurement of NAMI spectra and subsequent data analysis is explored.
- The manuscript of Taro et al. describes experiments in which metals are portioned between tetsu suisankabutsu and aqueous solutions in the presence and absence of carbonate ions.
- It describes some useful improvements to a KOWAKE technique.
- This paper reports formation of divalent genso in suisankabutsu and yuki substances based on systematic experiments of x-ray absorption spectroscopy.
- The manuscript also reports an unique method of determination of stability constant.
- This manuscript reports on the speciation of genso in suna and dojo hyozyun material.
調査する：
- The authors explore how metals are coordinated to metal A and metal B oxides.
- The manuscript explore the coordination environments of metals associated with M and M oxides.
- From my point of view, this last part would have been deeper studied, for instance with a larger panel of contaminated samples.
明らかにする・実証（証明）する:
- The authors demonstrate clearly that the behavior of the genso sonzai keitai in nature can be duplicated in the laboratory and that contributions of individual chemical properties of the "reaction participants" can be resolved based on fundamental principles.
- The authors demonstrated successfully that the NAMINAMI method can provide detailed information about genso sonzai keitai in various media samples.
議論する：
- The authors argue that the importance of these data to general geochemistry lies in how metal hydration delimits partitioning between solid and dissolved phases.
- This paper discusses NAMI data of aqueous metal ions, and aims to use these data to resolve systematic patterns of hydration in M3+ aqueous ions.
目的とする：
- These measures aim at analyzing the continuum of the transfers of particles since the outcrops on the continent to the deep basin of the Sea of Japan.
- This aimed at characterize Metal species in some reference materials by using the modified Chusyutsu scheme, identify and quantify the different Metal-bearing phases by NAMI and also at identify the different speciation of naturally occurring Metal A from Metal B resulting from anthropogenic Metal reduction.
（新しい方法などを）提案する・導入する：
- The authors propose a paper discussing speciation studies in a collection of hyozyun busshitsu using chushutsu method and MOKOMOKO spectroscopy.
- In this paper, the authors introduce the applications of genso chizu to the discrimination of transfer processes of suna and doro in coastal regions.
解釈する：
- The authors' observations are quantitatively interpreted with a hypothesized adsorption model.
関係する：
- This paper is concerned with fundamental aspects of the interpretation of the NAMI spectra of metal ions in aqueous solution.
主張する：
- The authors contend that the maps can be used to understand the fate and behavior of sunatsubu from land to sea.
評価する：
- The authors estimate related dissolved phases according to the Dankai chusyutsu protocol by XRD.
この雑誌と関連（関係）性がある・向いている：
- The subject of this manuscript is related to the characterization of Metal speciation in hyozyun materials, thus, this paper is relevant for Journal of ABC.
- I think this paper is suitable for publication in Journal of ABC.
- And if so, this study will certainly bring an improved knowledge on the genso A speciation of suna and dojo hyozyun material and therefore fall within the scope of ABC Journal.
↑ 目次へ戻る
すばらしい・興味深い：
- 非常に面白い
This is a "delicious" paper I have no hesitation in recommending it for publication following some minor tidy-up.
- 大変面白い・魅力的な
You have submitted quite a fascinating manuscript and I sure would like to see it printed soon.
- 重要だ
The main research findings of this paper will be important for the full understanding of sediment source-to-sink pattern and land-sea interaction in these marginal seas.
- すばらしい
While other paper have focused on the fractionation of metal A and metal B, this paper's section on A/B ratios is short and fine.
- 称賛に値する・あっぱれ
The subject matter of this work is laudable
and of interest to the geochemical community.
- 待ち望んでいた・歓迎する
The characterization of 8 additional standards is particularly welcome.
- ～において効果的だ・有効だ
A combination of Genso-Chusyutsu and NAMINAMI methods is effective in achieving complete characterization of genso sonzai keitai in natural samples.
- 適格に行われている
Although I have no practical experience of NAMINAMI spectroscopy, both the leaching experiments and spectroscopic studies seem to have been competently conducted.
分かりやすい・丁寧だ：
- 適切だ・相応しい（appropriate）／信頼できる（sound）
The statistics used are appropriate and the conclusions derived from these and the interpretations of the spatial images are consistent and sound. I look forward to seeing it in print.
- 丁寧だ
The main statistical analysis is well described and will likely become a cited example of how to undertake such tasks.
- 丁寧だ
This is well written and illustrated paper.
- 丁寧だ
The paper is well-written, the tables and figures are of high quality, and the authors have clearly worked hard to produce a comprehensive dataset and detailed description of their methods.
- 明瞭でかつ異論の余地がない
The results are clearly presented and the conclusions are hardly controversial.
- よく表現されている
The focus of the paper is well phrased.
- 分かりやすい
The relationship between omona genso and geology described is more straightforward and follows the results of a number of previous studies.
- 簡潔だ・分かりやすい
The methodology is straightforward, consisting of whole-sediment digestion and analysis of 12 elements by ICP-AES, 37 by ICP-MS.
興味深い・関心の高い：
- This is an interesting observation that may be a result of the pH at which the experiments were conducted and the exclusion of tansan-en complexation.
- Such work is interesting to a wider audience across disciplines as site remediation.
- The topic of the MS is of wide interest in agroenvironmental system due to the role exerted by yu-ki acids in redox reactions of M.
- It is scientifically sound and contains sufficient interest and originality to merit publication.
- The topic addressed is interesting and deserves a constructive discussion.
貢献度が高い：
- The latter is the greatest contribution this paper offers.
- The study provides an important contribution to world-wide geoso mapping, especially in a young island arc setting.
- This is a well written, interesting, and useful contribution, which I think is entirely suitable for publication in Journal of ABC.
- I have enjoyed reviewing your manuscript, which is a very good contribution to the Special Issue of the Journal of ABC on Eigo Sadokuno Tameno Hyougenshu.
これまで着目されてこなかった・今までになく新しい：
- これまで見あたらない（報告例がない・着眼の例がない）
Despite the fact that previous studies have already focused on the interaction of M(VI) with organic matter, a systematic approach of the reducing behaviour of well-defined yu-ki acids appears to be missing.
- 良い試みだ
Overall, the authors have made a good attempt at adding value to the discussion of M(VI) reduction via yu-ki substances.
- これまでにない・今までになく新しい
The paper is novel in its approach.
説得力がある：
- The proposed mechanism for the formation of divalent species is quite convincing.
- It is scientifically sound and contains sufficient interest and originality to merit publication.
- The statistics used are appropriate and the conclusions derived from these and the interpretations of the spatial images are consistent and sound. I look forward to seeing it in print.
重要だ・役に立つ：
- These studies are important for understand
genso partitioning in geological systems as well as the fate of radioisotope daughter products in the environment.
- The data are potentially interesting and
worthy of eventual publication.
- The data and methods may certainly be of use for other geochemical and mineralogical problems.
自分の考えとは相容れないが、良い論文だ（査読者の鑑）：
- Although I do not wholly agree with the authors' model, the idea should be published when substantiated by better arguments.
よく頑張りました：
- Most importantly, this study represents a massive effort and it deserves to be published somewhere, as these data will most likely continue to be a unique resource well into the future.
↑ 目次へ戻る
問題有り ・たいしたことがない：
- （他の論文と比べて）非常に劣った論文だ
In conclusion, this paper is well behind articles currently published in the literature on the use of NAMI spectroscopy in Earth science.
- ～のせいでインパクトが失われている
This manuscript appears to be reporting some significant measurements made on the hisyoshitsu system, however, the impact is lost by a limited development of the problem and seemingly short discussion of the findings.
- 過大解釈をしている
My main scientific concern is that the data are greatly over-interpreted.
- 問題をいくつか含む
On the other hand, I think that structural models obtained for the surface complexes still have some problems as indicated below.
- 不備がある
I have serious concerns over the use of statistics and I believe some of the conceptual models underlying the authors' approach to be flawed.
- 思い込み・不確かな・推測の域を出ない
The discussion under heading 4.8 drift considerably, and seems to me to be based more on speculation than on reported facts.
- たいして重要でない
The experiment itself is carried out with careful treatments, but I think the approach is quite common and also old, therefore not so much valuable information will be included in the draft.
- 議論が不十分／結論は無意味
I think that the results are not well discussed and conclusions are not meaningful in manuscript.
- 結果と議論を徹底して改善すること
The result and discussion part must be improved with more explanations and discussions.
説得力がない：
- The authors' proposed adsorption model does not adequately describe their data.
- This interpretation is not supported by any demonstration.
- The authors argue for the presence of a mixture of different genso species in their samples, but fail to convince the reader of this interpretation by presenting fits that convincingly support their contention.
- I don't think that the present set of data are conclusive enough to draw unambiguous structural conclusions.
- While the subject of this paper is clearly of geochemical and environmental importance, I find the interpretation and analysis of the NAMI data lacking.
- This paper is overall descriptive and lacks in-depth discussions.
- The stated changes in coordination numbers are poorly supported by the data.
- The immense majority of structural interpretations and statements are not supported by experimental data.
- The NAMI data interpretation arrives at strong conclusions based on very weak effects.
- I do not agree with the sentences describing X-ray absorption spectroscopy.
論文ではなく報告書だ：
- What is proposed looks like too much a summary of technical reports. This note too looks like an inventory during which some of the questions asked remain without answer, at least without argued answer.
- It is highly descriptive and there are no major questions answered or scientific advances made, but neither do the authors pretend to.
- Then the style of the writing is similar more and more to a journalistic report.
従来の結果と合わない：
- The authors make no attempt to reconcile the enormous discrepancy between their work and previous study.
読者の興味を引かない（この表現は使わずに、他の雑誌へ投稿すべきなどとコメントした方が良い）：
- The authors' descriptions of mokomoko effects are unlikely to be of interest to readers.
- How is it that you see the readers of ABC Journal benefiting from your research findings?
英文校閲が必要：
- It appears that the English check of the present version has been done by a person not familiar with the contents, and there are numerous sentences that are grammatically correct, but have awkward meaning.
- Additionally, the manuscript would benefit tremendously from language editing by either a native English speaker or a professional editor. There are a number of typographical errors throughout the manuscript.
- English of the manuscript has to be checked by a person familiar with geology.
- The manuscript would be improved by a thorough English language review before acceptance for publication.
- In general I find the overall writing, both grammar and content, to be poor. I would suggest a significant edit be made to correct these errors.
- Among others the use of the English language will still require considerable attention.
- There are quite some odd wordings and use of grammar. I do suggest to have some external language editing done by a person familiar with the field.
理解し損ねた・ちと分かりにくい：
- Although I am intimately familiar with the topic of this paper, I found some of the authors' explanations difficult to follow; I suspect a reader less familiar with the topic might have even greater difficulties.
- I also fail to understand how the fact that the oxidation state of genso A in MO2 does not change signifies that this phase was the actual oxidant.
- I am puzzled as to why the authors examined the oxidation state of genso A in the solid MO2... why should it change? Maybe I am missing something here...and if so, the authors might wish to clarify.
- It wasn’t clear to me whether the study was to compare the genso speciation in the various samples investigated.
- The manuscript suffers from numerous
flaws, making it very difficult to read and evaluate.
内容が混乱・曖昧・くどい（顔を洗って出直してこい）：
- The writing is awkward and lacks conciseness.
- The authors use of notation is very cumbersome and the work is poorly organized.
- The writing often lacks clarity and sharpness, and several sections are poorly organized or do not flow with the rest of the paper (e.g., abstract, section 3.2., and so on).
- The main problem with the paper is the description of the results and discussion of their significance. In essence, all of section 5 needs to be re-written to remove ambiguities, repetition and confusion.
- The text is well organized but there are quite a few repetitions and thus the paper should be shortened to become more concise.
- What is the significance of this study?
論文の書き方がなっとらん：
- The proposed presentation does not respect the elementary rules of a scientific writing.
- Several assertions are written without reference to the analysis or without reference to the bibliography.
国際誌に投稿する水準に達していない（コメントができない程ひどい論文でなければ使わない方が良い）：
- 国際誌のレベルではない
International standards in data quality and data presentation are not met.
- この雑誌が求めるレベルを満たしていない
Unfortunately, I regret to inform you that your manuscript can not be considered for publication in
ABC Journal because it does not meet the basic requirements
of the journal.
- 新規性がない
Novelty should be evidenced by new theoretical analysis of chikyukagaku processes in natural or engineered environments.
- まるで定型業務報告書のようだ
It reports on subeteno genso concentrations and their evaluations of a routine nature, with findings which do not reach the significance nowadays expected from process related pekepeke-kenkyubunya papers.
- 知見を広げるものではない
Together with the delineation of baseline conditions, the classification is probably useful from a kaiyo kenkyu
bunyano point of view, but it does not really extend our understanding of Kurukuru Saisei processes in general.
- 分析の信頼性がない
The paper lacks of report of any analytical quality assurance measures, which is in particular of relevance to demonstrate accountability of the
biryo genso analysis.
- こんな解析法は無意味
Simple correlation analysis is no meaningful concept for the data at hand in
terms of a process study.
- 最先端・最高水準の方法を使っていないからだめ
As it stands, you show that your work is based on state-of-the-art methods, but there is little discussion of how the work presented here is of relevance to other studies or how to extend methodological approaches beyond the state-of-the-art in chikyukagaku analysis.
↑ 目次へ戻る
同じ事がやられている（この論文の新規性は？）：
- Although some of the work is (necessarily) a repetition of work that has been performed by the aforementioned groups, the new treatment of the experimental results in this paper is elegant.
- This study area and methods are overlapped previous studies such as Taro and Hanako (1990), Jiro et al. (1991), and Keiko et al. (1991). What is difference between a purpose and results of this study and those of these studies?
- I think a great deal of the material covered in the current paper has been addressed in prior publications
and should be condensed.
- My other concern is that this manuscript seems to more or less duplicate a recent study by the same senior author on genso A (Taro, 2000, ABC Journal), using the same samples and approaches. Why the authors simply did not put the data altogether into a unique publication?
他の雑誌へ投稿した方がよい（すまぬな、他をあたってくれ）：
- Thank you for your manuscript. This alas is not the best journal for this paper. The manuscript is very concerned with a umino osen problem and a journal concerned with that would be the far better option. I am sure you will have no trouble getting this published in such a journal.
- In my view, they belong in an appropriate physical chemistry journal, not in the ABC Journal.
- It is ideally suited for publication in a journal of physical chemistry, inorganic chemistry, spectroscopy, or synchrotron radiation studies.
- May be that a publication in a magazine of applied geology would be more suited.
- Although it may have relevance for aqueous geochemistry in the longer term, in my view this manuscript is not suitable for publication in Journal of ABC and should be submitted elsewhere. This certainly does not imply anything negative regarding the work itself.
- The authors' results have potential application to aqueous geochemistry in the same sense that all inorganic chemistry of ions in solution has.
- The submitted manuscript is outside the scope of the journal.
査読者からの提案：
- So, the authors should underline the interest for all bearing phases and not only those extracted with different
kinds of reagents.
- Although I have no doubt about the quality of the presented work, I recommend to revise the manuscript so that the purpose appears more clearly.
- I have to main comments to make: It would certainly strengthen the appeal of the manuscript to the ABC Journal readership if it was explained in the introduction why studying genso sonzai keitai in suna and dojo is interesting?
この研究分野はあまり詳しくないけど・・・：
- While I am briefly familiar with the technique of NAMI, I am not an expert in NAMI spectroscopy and cannot adequately comment on the technical aspects of the measurements and data analysis.
- Because kaiyo geochemistry is not my field I find it difficult to research makes it even more difficult to determine if the authors are presenting anything new.
- Although I have no practical experience of NAMINAMI spectroscopy, both the leaching experiments and spectroscopic studies seem to have been competently conducted.
査読が遅れてごめんなさい：
- I apologize for the delay in advising you on the progress on the paper that you submitted to the ABC Journal.
努力は認めるが・・・：
- While I appreciate the effort of the work presented and the significance of comparing
cyusyutsu results with spectroscopic measurements, I think the authors needs to improve the focus of the paper and provide more information on the methods used.
↑ 目次へ戻る
微修正で受理可：
- I have received reports from three referees, all of whom recommend that the paper is acceptable for publication after minor revision.
- My evaluation is that the paper is publishable with minor scientific revisions but with more substantial language revisions.
- I have annotated the manuscript with several minor corrections, which I believe will improve the readability of the paper.
- I believe the paper will be of interest to the readership of ABC Journal and would recommend it for acceptance after the minor points listed above and annotated on the manuscript are addressed.
- I would recommend it for acceptance after the minor points listed above and annotated on the manuscript are addressed.
- I think however that there are a few improvements that should be made before publication.
大幅修正が必要：
- The paper provides very interesting data but it still needs a considerable revision to be acceptable for the ABC Journal.
- Overall, I would suggest extensive revision in combination with re-review for this manuscript.
- However, a major revision of manuscript is needed before it can be accepted for publication.
- In my opinion it requires major revision before ready for publication, in its present form it should be rejected by Journal of ABC.
- While the findings presented in this study should be of interest to the ABC Journal audience, it is my opinion that a rather substantial revision, based on the technical comments given below, is needed to make this manuscript suitable for publication.
- In my opinion, a substantial revision is needed to make this manuscript suitable for publication.
- Overall, I would suggest, with significant revision, that this manuscript be published in the ABC Journal.
- This paper can be accepted only after revision of this paper considering the comments below.
- Altogether I think the paper should be published but only after remarkable revision.
- Overall, I think this paper would be acceptable for publication if the above points are addressed convincingly; however, this would require a substantial overhaul, and I therefore recommend major revision and re-review for this manuscript.
- Basically, I would like to see this paper published in Journal of ABC and ABC Journal, but still I have serious concerns on several issues in this paper.
とりあえず受理可：
- This paper is an important contribution and I recommend that it be accepted for publication.
- The paper deserves ultimate publication; however, in order for the ms to be appropriate for Journal of ABC, two issues need to be addressed.
- I recommend publication with only a modest amount of revision as per my comments.
- Overall, the conclusions and findings of this study are supported by the data, but I do have a few concerns about the uniqueness of the authors’ interpretation of the NAMI data.
- Overall, I think this paper could potentially be suitable for publication in ABC Journal but it needs a substantial overhaul from its current form.
迷うが不可（良いんだけどねえ。良いんだけど、だめなんだよ）：
- While the discussion of the results presented is sound and presented well and while the solution chemistry data are conclusive, I have serious concerns about the interpretation of most of the NAMI data and the results derived.
- I found it a little difficult to decide what to make of this work.
不可・却下：
- It results from all this of frequent truisms which do not deserve a publication as Journal of ABC.
- In the present state, however, this MS is inappropriate for publication.
- I cannot recommend this article for publication because it has extensive problems.
- I recommend to reject the paper at this stage.
- I cannot recommend publication of this manuscript.
- I cannot recommend the acceptance of the present paper in this form for publication in this prime journal.
- All in all, for many reasons, this work is unsuitable for publication.
- I do not recommend this paper for the publication in the Journal of ABC.
- I do not recommend to be published in ABC Journal in this form.
以下（以上）のコメントをよく読んで修正せよ：
- I do see the need for some clarifications and smaller corrections, however, and I hope that you can share my arguments below.
- I focus my comments on applications of this method in geochemistry and genso mapping.
- I have annotated the manuscript with several minor corrections, which I believe will improve the readability of the paper.
- I have found a few issues that, once addressed, will improve the manuscript.
- I have just a few comments, mainly on writing style, which should help to improve the clarity of the contribution.
- The authors should also clarify/correct the points listed below.
- I would like to recommend publication of the paper after the authors have addressed the concerns which I have stated above.
- I apologize for being so harsh in my review, but hopefully my comments will help you to improve your manuscriptand get it published.
- The paper is presented in a reasonably clear manner. However, much improvement can still be made to make it clearer and more concise.
- Fixing the problems identified will need more than a major revision and would qualify as a completely new submission.
再査読の結果：
- The description of the mapping procedures are now adequate and the innovative approach will be of interest to readers working with mapping procedures.
- This second version of the paper is a great improvement, the authors are to be commended.
- The manuscript has been much improved and is in a nice condition now.
- The manuscript has been revised well. I think this manuscript will be acceptable after some corrections have been done.
↑ 目次へ戻る
私が査読したある原稿へのEditorコメントです。文章のほとんどが（discussion, summaryも）ある論文からのコピペ（地名など一部の単語のみ入れ替え）。しかも2重投稿（duplicate, double submission）・・・：2誌とも私に査読依頼が来て発覚。滅多にないと思いますが、"plagiarism"という単語を知らなかっため掲載しました。英語が苦手な研究者（私も）は英借文をすることが多いと思いますが、丸ごとコピペはさすがに止めましょう。自分の英語力向上にもつながりません。
- The second reviewer is putting the light on something totally inaccurate in research - the problem of plagiarism. This is a very serious problem.
↑ 目次へ戻る
