注意点を熟読の上、ご利用ください
＜内容の修正について＞
- 表題（Title）
- 要旨（Abstract）
- 導入部（Introduction）
- 試料採取・調査・解析手法・実験方法（Sample, Methodology・・・）
- 結果（Results）
- 考察（Discussion）
- 結論・まとめ（Summary, conclusion）
- 図（Figures）
- 表（Tables）
- 単位（units）
- 引用文献（References）
- 章立て・文章構成（Sentence construction）
- 用語・表現の誤り
- 避けた方が良い表現
- 査読の最後に
General Comments編はこちら
- 短くしなさい
I suggest to shorten it by omitting the two first words "Eigo Sadoku".
- 間違っている
The title is misleading and wrong in this context.
↑ 目次へ戻る
- The abstract should be rewritten as the general purpose of the proposed publication does not appear clearly.
- I believe that both the abstract and the paper itself are overly long and should be shortened.
↑ 目次へ戻る
内容が不足
- With regard to content, there appears to be a lack of introductory material. I would anticipate that adding this more complete introduction would also require the addition of a number of additional references.
説明が間違っている・よろしからん
- 誤解を招きかねないので修正を
The beginning statements of the Introduction may be a bit misleading at the moment, this needs to be re-formulated.
- 説明が間違っている
Rephrase the statement about the pollution; I would assume that the pollution studies are most important form the environmental perspective.
研究の動機や目的を明確にする
- 研究動機がない
There is no motivation in the Introduction.
- 普通Introductionの最後に研究目的を述べるものだが・・・
The normal way to end an introduction is to state the objectives of your study.
- なぜこの研究を行ったかを明確にする
I think you need to clearly articulate why this study was undertaken.
その他
- 説明すべし
The authors would say the method for
the evaluation in the Introduction section in detail.
- ～に関する文献がない
No references for the existing
already applications of genso chusyutsu
and NAMINAMI spectroscopy for metal A
in similar studies are presented.
↑ 目次へ戻る
説明不足への指摘：疑問形型
How
- How do the large differences in ΔE values between the systems affect the bond length comparisons?
- How did the authors take into account possible self-absorption?
- How long was the powder reacted to the dojo sample before analysis?
- Sampling needs to be covered as well: how were these samples collected?
- A drying temperature of 80°C is given. This can release certain amounts of genso A, genso B, etc. How did you make sure that no losses occurred?
how以外の疑問形型
- 実験手順についての疑問
Were the tindenbutsu washed? How were they recovered? Were they freeze-dried, kept in solution, air dried, etc.? Results of metal binding to disordered and poorly crystalline materials are known to be dependent on the sample history and hydration state.
- ～の恐れはないか？
Could there have been any redox effects caused by photoelectron production in the x-ray beam?
- うーん、どうかなあ（悩む）
I am wondering whether this procedure gives some advantages for the separation of genso from different fractions of the
investigated suna and dojo samples.
- 何かしらの影響を受けるのでは？
Indeed, even at low temperature the dehydration of amorphous tetsu suisankabutsu may influence the speciation of
yu-gai genso, and the series of drying, washing, freeze-drying steps are not inoffensive.
- もしかしてコピペ？
On p.8 the title of the chapter is "Genso no bunsekiho". Is this part of the manuscript is recycled from Hanako (2014) paper or is the different measurement procedure?
- 解析ソフト・プログラムは？
Was this fitting procedure performed using a particular software program? Please give this information so it can be repeated by other investigators.
- 解析プログラムは？
What program was used to process (averaging, normalization, background subtraction, etc.) the NAMI data?
説明不足への指摘：指摘型
- 実験手順・方法を詳しく説明すべし
The sample container used for NAMI measurements is not described - please add description of sample mounting and detector geometry.
- 正しく説明すべし
You are discussing normalization procedures. You need to clarify exactly what you did.
- 定量値を示すべし
Please provide some kind of numerical value, at least for precision.
- 明記すべし
This should be much better described and clarified, preferably in the materials and methods section.
- 説明すべし
The quantification estimation of genso sonzai keitai by linear combination fitting could be introduced here.
- 考慮すべし
Ageing has to be taken into account.
-
実験は天然で起きていることを完全に再現していないと書け（普通こういう指摘はしないのだが・・・）
Although the results are applicable to the natural environment, it would be beneficial to state that these experiments do not really duplicate what occurs in nature.
地名・手法などが一般的でない場合：
- 一般的でない
The study area is not well known to many of the readers of Journal of ABC. It may be an idea to show an additional topographical map of the area, including the locations of the major settlements (industries if possible at that scale) and other likely Osen genso sources.
- 一般的でない
Fixing of the coordination number seems to be unconventional based on other work I have read, without having any direct experience myself.
- 一般的でない
I am also realistic enough to realize that not everyone recognizes this technique.
- 不十分
This figure 7 has an insufficient legend and presentation. The reader does not know these rivers, either their place, or their meaning.
- 実験方法を表にまとめたら？
The experimental procedures of the scheme could be summarized in a table instead of being described in the text – this would save space.
- フローチャートを示したら？
The authors should explain the tokei method more detail and display the flow chart.
↑ 目次へ戻る
分析結果・統計
- ノイズレベルでは？
The intensity of this feature is near the noise level.
- データの質は？
I would like to see some results of quality control, e.g. some results for international reference material(s) that were analyzed together with the samples.
- データの質は？
The quality of your results (and the recovery of your extraction) is very important in the light of some discussions later on in the paper.
- 誤差を示せ
What are the error estimates for
the linear combination fits?
- 統計解析法を示せ
Is it also necessary to publish here the statistical processings of these measures?
- ロバストでない（統計用語）
I am not convinced that the data analysis is robust enough at this stage.
問題点の指摘
- ～が原因では？
These differences could be attributable to differences in experimental pH, genso concentrations, and solid phase concentrations.
- 解析法の問題点を指摘
1) The linear combination fits presented in this figure 4 are not very convincing as the fits are not that great.
2) Linear combination fitting of NAMINAMI spectra is extremely versatile and fitting results must be taken with caution.
- 指摘する
I should also like to point out
that the results of the kyochin and
kyuchaku experiments are only similar systematically; they are not
identical and the two different approaches yield slightly different Kd
values possibly because of particle ageing effects.
- ～とは言い過ぎでは？
You cannot really say that your results are "comparable" to those obtained by youbai chusyutsu.
- 分かりきった結果なのでわざわざ書かなくても
"Data presented in Fig. 3 ···(中略)··· mud contents". But this result was rather predictable, it is not a discovery.
説明不足・過剰
- もっと丁寧に説明せよ
This needs to be addressed as well.
- もっと詳しく説明せよ
Please include enough information such that an independent investigator would be able to repeat the experiments.
- もっと詳しく説明せよ
More explanation on the relation of the obtained on the genso keitai bunseki results to the origin of samples and sedimentary environment should be given in the discussion part and in the conclusions.
- 説明が足りない
Sufficient details for repeating the synthesis procedures for silica gel are not given in this manuscript.
- 説明が足りない
This sentence is not sufficient to explain the technical terms.
- 説明が長い
In my opinion the description of the technical details and obvious facts should be shortened considerably.
- ～ついての記載があれば助かる
Is there ko-butsu kaiseki data for the Hyozyun Busshitsu? It would be useful to include this information when discussing some of the element speciation within the various standards.
- ～ついての記載があれば助かる
It is surprising that 'no distinct' peaks were found for the 'silica gel' sample. It would be useful for a mineralogical audience to see the diffraction pattern of the starting material.
説明が分かりにくい
- 表現が分かりにくい
What can be the metal A-bearing minerals present “in a fairly stable state in the sediments”?
- 用語が分かりにくい
I was confused with the words of "whole kaiyo sediments", "kaiyo sediments" used in this figure and the text. It is better to classify these sediments studied by their locations, e.g. Zone 1, Zone 2..and to specify them in Figures 1 or 2.
- 用語を統一して
The technical terms are different in each section.
- 専門用語をきちんと定義して
The authors should define the terminology.
その他
- データの出所は？
The data sources of the kawa, umi and fu-soujin sediments have to be specified.
- ～を考慮して
This is especially true in view of the weak second shell features seen in the RSFs of these spectra, and the subtle differences observed in the MOKOMOKO spectra of the samples analyzed, and would therefore greatly strengthen the paper.
- ～ついて調べてみたら？
Several publications have shown that speciation of genso may be modified upon freeze drying, and for that study, it could be worth checking the incidence of the sample preparation on genso status.
- 図に載っていない
Please note that SADO kinzan is not shown on the map (Figure 1c), and IWAMI ginzan is not described.
↑ 目次へ戻る
過大解釈・見かけ上の効果では？：
- 不自然な結果
The large differences in the M anomaly that decrease with increasing pH are somewhat artificial in that they are not due to much of a change in the genso behavior, but rather due to increased (pure) scavenging of the trivalent genso with increasing pH.
- 不自然な結果
The fact that your stability constants disagree with those obtained by solvent extraction by as much as 1-1.5 log units is troubling, and may be an artifact of your experimental design.
- 懸念
Another concern is the error of bond length determined by NAMI.
- 説得力がない
The following conclusion that "this figure suggests that ······ in low pH conditions" is not convincing.
- 大げさな・誇張した
The amplitude at 2.5 Å may or may not be exaggerated.
- 拡大解釈・誇張
Notation that M content becomes stable > 30 km from Tsukuba River is clearly an overstatement and does not corroborate with Fig. 3.
- 疑わしい・怪しい
The bending flexibility of this arrangement is questionable.
- 非現実的
The authors' claim that "the intensity in the region ······ pH level" may or may not be a real effect.
- 信頼性が足りない
If we consider the error (accuracy + precision), the mutual differences of the bond lengths among genso for the aqua complexes and sorbed species are not significant enough to discuss the mokomoko effects directly from the bond lengths determined by NAMI.
- 不適切
Your partitioning results, which are valid and interesting in and of themselves, may not be suitable for the derivation of stability constants.
- 誤った結果・解釈
In addition, the plot for M-O distances sorbed on carbonate and tetsu suisanka materials are also misleading if plotted with the values for aqua complexes.
- 拡大解釈／疑わしい・怪しい結果
The NAMI spectra appear over-interpreted. Indeed the NAMI region could provide precise information about the oxidation state, the coordination but the identification of bearing phase is questionable.
考察の展開に問題あり：
- ～に対する懸念
I have several concerns with their experiments and results.
- 異なる視点から考察しては？
The conclusion that genso form outer-sphere complexes to tetsu suisankabutsu is very important and should be confirmed from different aspects.
- 説得力がない
Fig. 2 in this review showing the values only for genso sorbed on MOOH and MO2 are not convincing to claim that the mokomoko effect is observed in the metal pattern of the bond lengths.
- 危険だ・無理があるのでは
Using two different pH values for the MCO3-bearing and MCO3-free solutions is very dangerous.
- 有効性（正当性）を確証する
It is not clear if this characterization method works unless it is validated by another method or supported by other information.
- 有効であると確証する
While I agree that this is a good approach to take, I do not agree that the considerations discussed above validate this approach.
- 不確かなデータに基づいた推測
This statement and the other comments in the text on this subject are strongly speculative, with the authors presenting no new or supporting evidence.
- Result と Discussion がごちゃ混ぜになっている
In reality, this discussion announced here was yet widely begun because results and comments were widely mixed.
- この意見には同意できない
I don’t agree to this opinion.
- この結論を導くには不十分である
It seems inadequate to conclude that the kesshoudo increase after the touketsu kanso shori is originated from the decomposition of yu-ki butsu, only from written results for the dojo sample.
- 目的が違っているんですけど・・・
The objective the authors said here is different from the aims you mentioned in the Introduction section.
結果が曖昧・説得力に欠ける・証拠は？：
- 明確に言えない
Genso A enrichments in the Tsukuba Basin do not appear to be particularly distinct, and concern only few samples in a limited area.
- 説得力がない・納得できない
The discussion of
genso forming monodentate bonding with yu-kibutsu is based on assumptions, but remains unconvincing.
- 妥当な結果と証明できない
The statement that the M-O distances are shorter for the carbonate system than for the silica gel and yu-ki acids systems may not be justified given the reported uncertainties in the M-O bond lengths. Are these differences statistically significant?
- 判断できない
Since the Sekigaisen data are not included in the current paper, it is not possible to judge the independent evidence supporting outer-sphere complexation.
- 説得力がない
The coordination numbers given here are presented as if they are known to a high level of certainty, when, in fact the determination of coordination number by NAMI in these situations is subject to a great deal of uncertainty.
- 十分な証拠・根拠がない
Examining the data shown in Figures 3 and 4, I believe this outcome is not supported clearly enough.
- 証拠・根拠がない
There is no evidence shown that "M was partly precipitated as M(OH)3".
- 証拠・根拠は？
Any evidence to support this?
- 証拠・根拠は？
More direct evidences are needed.
- 証拠・根拠は？
The authors explained above results in those sentences, but the authors should give some references and/or convincing evidence.
- 同意できない（議論を否定する場合は、その根拠となる論文なども一緒に示した方が良い）
I can not agree. genso concentration correlate with yu-kibutsu content. If the authors try to reduce the ryu-kei effect, they should check the yu-kibutsu in sediments.
何が言いたいのか分からん：
- 分かりにくく理解できない
Discussion about Aaa, Bbb, and Ccc is difficult to follow and needs rephrasing.
- この議論が理解できない
I do not understand the argument being made in this sentence.
- ～の議論（説明）が非常に分かりにくい
This statement is very confusing, since the lines for M-O have not previously been defined in the text.
- 非常に分かりづらい
All this part
is highly difficult to follow and an effort of synthesis has to be made.
- 何を意味しているのか理解できない
I cannot understand what meaning of this sentence.
- 本当か！？
This statement is very alarming.
- （by以下）～とはどういう意味
What do the authors mean by "chemical properties"?
- （by以下）～の議論（説明）が理解できない
I don’t understand what author means by “subsequent dissolution in yu-ki acid” and “the results suggest that some materials in addition to the minerals were not decomposed in step A”.
- 図が非常に分かりにくく、十分な情報が得られない
These two figures are overall confusing and fail to provide important information on sediment sources.
分かりにくい・もっと明確な表現に：
- まとまりがない
The ending to the paper seems rather abrupt.
- ～に関する議論が明瞭でない
The arguments as to why the authors conclude that M speciation is not a mixture of M(OH)3 and M-Yukibutsu are not clear.
- もっと徹底的に説明して欲しい
This discussion should be extensively clarified to discriminate inner sphere and outer sphere coordination.
- なぜ～であるのかよく分からない
In the statistical analysis, I was not quite clear why some data were log-transformed and others not, i.e. what was the criterion used to log-transform some.
- 議論が明確に述べられていない
The arguments are however not laid out clearly, and this section needs rewriting for clarity.
- 議論が明瞭でない
While I understood the authors' intended meaning, the section describing the M correction factor is not presented clearly.
- まったく不明確
It is highly unclear what 'inconspicuous shell' is referred to.
- 不明確
The last sentence is unclear, you also use two different sets of elements. Adsorption on nedo koubutsu is the more likely explanation.
- 不明確
This discussion of the shoulder peak is unclear. Please clarify.
- 不明確
The last sentence is unclear to me.
～についてきちんと説明して：
- ～についてーの点からきちんと説明して
You need to develop this idea further and explain the statistical relationship it in terms of mineralogical possibilities.
- ～についてきちんと説明して
The authors need to describe the interpolation method they form a mesh map
this is unclear at the moment.
- もう少し系統的に説明して欲しい
"···patterns of elemental concentrations in dokodoko areas were used with existing chikyukagaku maps···" this needs some better formulation.
- 追加すべし
Explanation for elevated diagenetic genso A and genso B oxic phases in sandy sediments should be provided.
- 追加すべし
The author have to give the arguments against a significant hydrothermal contribution in the chemical composition of their nodules if they want to make their discussion convincing.
- 説明がない
There is no statement concerning speciation evaluation when Cyusyutsu protocol was established.
- 説明がない
Uncertainty and traceability of obtained results for genso A sonzai keitai are not explained. In my opinion both issues are important for the reliability of obtained results and they are not completely solved in the present study.
分かりきったこと（自明の理）では？：
- This leaves the door wide open to all sorts of self-evident comments.（嫌みの入った表現です）
- It results from all this of frequent truisms.
文章表現に問題：
- 別の解釈があるのでは？
There could be an alternate way of interpreting the toaru genso data based on the bedrock form of the mikageishi and its subsequent weathering history.
- この文章に違和感有り
Page 15, para2. This is where I get uncomfortable with this paper.
- 略語の説明が分かりにくい
It would be clearer to give each abbreviation used with its explanation, e.g. "Abbreviations used are: Abc_n, normal Abc materials; Abc_u, urban Abc materials;" etc.
- 説明が長すぎる
This is largely a methods paper. Its length is excessive given its scope.
- 表現が場違い・浮いている
The two sentences between "Interference in M K edge" and "... M(VI) was negligible." appear to be out of place.
- 修正せよ
I think this sentence does not convey the meaning the authors intended. I recommend it be modified to read: "... Additionally, they suggested that ....... from the absorption spectra."
- 再考せよ
You need to rethink your whole statistical analysis approach.
- 短くして
Several sentences that state the agreement between the present study and ABCD should be shortened.
- 表現を和らげるか、強調する
Due to the lack of other supporting data in regards to Eigo Sadoku and Hyogen, the language should be softened or the argument presented later in the manuscript should be strengthened.
- 混乱している
The results and discussion section appears to be complete with respect to results, but seems muddled as far as discussion of the results.
↑ 目次へ戻る
- 短くて的を得ているが、～についてもっと明確に示した方が良い
The summary is short and to the point, but again does not clearly show the importance and relevance of the projects findings.
- Summaryが本文の不必要な繰り返しになっているので、箇条書きの短いConclusionに書き直しては？
The "Summary" is an unnecessary repetition of the rest of the paper (that is what the abstract is for). This should be replaced by a brief "Conclusion", possibly in point form.
- この結論の裏付けにあたる部分が本文で述べられていない
No data about the decreasing pollution level are presented in the manuscript hence there is no backing for this conclusion.
- 強調すべし
Author highlights the necessity of coupling Genso Chusyutsu method and MOKOMOKO spectra to decipher genso speciation.
↑ 目次へ戻る
凡例・軸：
- 凡例の追加
Add a legend to Figure 1 to make it easier to decipher the different symbols. It is clearly defined in the text, but it would be nice if it were incorporated into the figure itself.
- 凡例を統一せよ
It is very useful to combine marine and terrestrial datasets, but two different legends and class boundaries make it difficult to read these maps. I would recommend to apply the class boundaries (percentiles) of the marine dataset also to the terrestrial samples.
- Y軸の説明が間違っている
The y-axis label of Figure 1 is incorrect.
- （遠慮がちに）～した方が良いのでは？
Personally I would prefer to see maps in Fig. 3 using the same scale for the terrestrial and marine data.
スタイル：
- 線の幅を調整して
Adjust the line thicknesses so that coastline will be distinctly seen, and different from rivers and other boundaries.
- ラベル付けしたら？
I suggest labeling the Abc material types right on the figure legend.
- 尺度が抜けている
Scale bar is lacking.
- 字が小さすぎる
The fonts are too small.
- フォントを統一すること
Uniform a font of characters.
- カラーの図にしたら？
I would strongly recommend that the authors delineate the different sediment textures and lithologies in color.
- カラーの図にしたら？
The use of color is advisable here as well.
- 字が小さすぎる
I would recommend that the authors choose simpler and larger symbols to distinguish different groups of samples so that text labels are no longer necessary (except for highlighting groups).
図の説名：
- 四角で囲って強調した方が良い
Add a box around the area showing multiple electron scattering in Figure 3 to help focus the reader for the discussion of this effect.
- 本文と図で説明が違っている
The plotting style of the polynomial and the guide curve are described differently in the text and the figure. Please make these consistent.
- 図に描かれている線の説明が欲しい
Please re-iterate the explanation of the lines in Figure 5 and refer to the appendix so the reader will have an independent context to understand the text.
- 図に描かれている線の説明が欲しい
I do not feel that the lines in Fig.1 provide sufficient information (are these really 500 m contours?).
- 本文と図で説明が重複している（要はくどいと言いたい）
Too much information is duplicated in text and figure captions.
- 図を削除すべし
Figure 4 should be omitted.
見栄え：
- ごちゃごちゃしている
These plots are vey "busy" but informative.
- Appendixなどに移した方が良い
The X-sen kaisetsu patterns could be included an appendix or online supplement (depository item).
- 各図に番号を振ったら？（1枚紙に複数の図が掲載されている場合）
I also wonder whether it would be better (for reference within the paper) if each of the maps got an own figure number.
- Fig. 1a, b, c のa, b, c が抜けている
The sub-numberings of figures were several times forgotten.
- 図が細かすぎて分かりにくい
This geologic map of Japan is too much detailed to support an important reduction, it is necessary to simplify it. I distinguish badly the "Fukatai"; the grey disks (sampling stations) overload the draft.
- 線・矢印などが何を指しているのか分からない
What meaning did the arrows refer to?
- 図が多すぎる
I really think you need to examine/re-evaluate the number of significant figures that you used in your data tabulations. You are using way too many significant figures.
- 表と重複している
Figure 1 is redundant with Table 3.
- 重複している
Fig 1 and Table 3 are partly redundant, and one is probably not necessary.
- 見えにくい
Overlaying the spectra in Fig. 3, there are hardly any differences visible in the series of data presented.
↑ 目次へ戻る
スタイル：
- 表が多すぎる
The tables are very demanding! Although the paper has already many figures I would certainly like to see some related graphics.
- 太字を使った強調をすることで、表が見えやすくなる
For example, 6×6 matrices for each element with bold font entries of means for lithological unit derived stream sediments - no entry indicates no difference and could contain the mean of the data from those similar parent lithology derived stream sediments.
- ～の情報を入れると読みやすくなるよ
Table 1 would be more "reader friendly" if the sequence Min - 25% - Med - Mean - 75% - Max - SD were used.
- スペースの節約
To save space, pairs of related elements may be plotted in the upper and lower triangles of the matrices.
- These should be replaced with the results of the appropriate
genso analysis.
数値・データの扱い：
- 検出限界
The detection limits should be provided in Table 1.
- 数値を丸める
Neither R (原子間距離の略語) nor CN (配位数の略語) values in Tables are rounded. Reporting the second digit for CN values is physically meaningless.
- サンプル数・データ数
You should state the number of samples upon which the statistics are based.
- 大量のデータをどう見せるか
Although the presentation of the data in the form of Heikin, Chu-o-chi, and Han-i (Tables 1–3) is informative without taking up an excessive amount of space, it is imperative that the authors report all their primary data. This is most easily done in a carefully annotated Excel file made available as an electronic supplement.
- 関連情報を一緒に載せると分かりやすい
It would be useful to include a table where the pertinent sample characteristics (e.g. texture, pH, metal content, …) are listed.
- 正確な値を示せ
Table 1: let precise “total yu-kibutsu C”, add metal A content and pH.
↑ 目次へ戻る
- SI単位
"ppm" should be replaced by a SI-unit, such as mg kg−1.
- %ではなくwt. %に直せ
Table 1 and some figures: you use the unit "%" for the Omona elements. This should be "wt. %".
↑ 目次へ戻る
不足・多すぎ・偏っている：
- 不足
A reference to an article in Press does not seem to be adequate documentation.
- 文献が多すぎるので、レビュー誌の引用に代えては？
The list of literature is fairly long, the authors try a kind of review of the literature on Abc material formation.
- 偏っている（どのように偏っているのかを具体的にコメントする方が親切）
The references are very selective.
- 特定の地域を議論した論文に偏っている
This bibliographical list is far too much regional.
- 文献が特定の地域・著者に偏っている
The referencing is comprehensive and up-to-date yet, while I realize that this is a somewhat specialized topic pertaining to a small geographic region, the authors rely rather too heavily on self-citation, with 7 first-author papers by Taro.
- 英語の論文なのに日本語論文の引用が多いと困る
It is also a major disadvantage that 9 cited papers are written in Japanese, which will be of little use – and possibly difficult to obtain – to the general readership of ABC Journal.
見つからない：
- The quote Taro et al. (2005) is missing in the reference list.
- The paper by Taro and Hanako (1987) is missing from the reference list.
- The paper by Hanako et al. (2006), cited on p. 10 (line 100), does not appear in the reference list.
- In line 55: Jiro et al., 1985 is given in introduction section of the text, unfortunately it is not found in the list of references.
引用が間違っている：
- 正しい文献はこれ
The better reference here is Taro et al. (2005).
- 著者名が間違っている
I should like to point out that the reference quoted as Taro and Hanako (2000) is in actuality Taro, Hanako, and Jiro (2000).
- 著者名が違っている
The paper by Taro and Hanako (1980) does contain a paper by Taro and Jiro (1980) that is not cited anywhere in the text. A quick internet search revealed that both versions have one author name wrong: the correct citation should read Tagosaku and Jiro (1980).
引用方法が不適切：
- 引用が不適切
This is not appropriate, as the Taro's paper is listed in the references as “in review” and can therefore not be accessed.
- 論文の発表年順に並べること
The same name by authors in the section of references should be given in order of publication date. (For exp. Hanako et al., 2003 ; Hanako et al., 2010, Hanako et al., 2014).
追加引用せよ：
- ～に関する論文を引用すべし
You should provide a reference for the ABC test.
- ～に関する論文を引用すべし
The papers reported NAMI data for M and L sorbed on suisanka butsu, which should be cited in this paper.
- ～に関する論文を引用すべし
It may be appropriate to include references regarding the coordination of these genoso in crystalline materials.
- 最新の論文を引用すべし
The latest products in Nishino kuniguni (Taro et al., 2003), which should also be cited in this connection here.
- 類似の研究論文を引用すべし
The authors should reference that quite similar experiments have been performed by others and that essentially the same thoughts have been expressed previously in the literature.
- 論文の発表年順に並べること
I am not quite in agreement that riku - umi interface geochemistry has started in the late 1990s, as the citations suggest. To name only three examples, I suggest to take a look at e.g., Hanako et al. (1990); Jiro (1991).
↑ 目次へ戻る
論文全体の構成について：
- 1つにまとめる
The NAMI results in the first paper should be combined with those in this paper (second paper) to be one paper.
- 分ける
I recommend to split the discussion on the correction of the tadenshi excitation that can be written as a more methodological or technical paper.
- 分ける
I would prefer to see the presentation and interpretation for the riku and umi sediments done separately but with the same techniques. This paper feels like two papers forced into one.
章立てを変える（まとめる・分ける・書き直す）：
- 改訂するか、削除するか、どちらか
Chapter 4.3 is difficult to follow. ... 中略 .... Either should the part be reworked, or omitted and important information included into the other chapters.
- 他の章に含める
Chapter 4.3 is difficult to follow. ... 中略 .... Either should the part be reworked, or, or omitteddand important informationand important information included into the other chapters.
- 一緒にする（まとめる）べし
I think that the text from 5.1 to 5.4 inclusive might be better grouped as "5. Toukei Kaiseki ".
- 混乱している／一緒にする（まとめる）べし
By this I mean that the results are fairly well reported, however, there is little connection made amongst the different sections.
- 章を2つに分けるべし
Results and Discussion should be separated into two sections.
- 一緒にする（まとめる）べし
I would suggest an attempt to tie these sections together with some overall discussion about how the results fit into the general hypothesis stated in the introduction.
- ～を除いたら信頼性が増すと思う
In my opinion your paper would again credibility if Table 2 and Figure 5 and actually all reference to factor analysis were removed.
章題目：
- 章の題目と内容が合っていない
The text in the section does not correspond to the title, and the reader is left guessing about the relationships; present and provide references to grain size - genso concentration plots.
- 章の題目を変更すべし
Incorporate sample information and rename the title "Materials and methods".
別の章へ移せ・別の章で述べるべし：
- ○○章は××章に変更すべし
The section 5.5. would become section 7.1.
- この文章は～の章で述べた方が良い
The first sentence belongs to the chapter 'Methods' and not in description of the study area.
- このパラグラフは～の章で述べた方が良い
The first two paragraphs belong to Introduction.
- 次の章へ移す
Move information on samples and field description to the next section.
- ～の章から移す（外す）
These paragraphs are not located appropriately in the manuscript. Please move them out of the section entitled "...comparison with M3+(aq)".
- ～の章に移す
The first sentence of section 5.1 should be moved to directly after “5. Discussion” rather than within section 5.1.
- ～はもっと前で説明した方が良い
The fitting method should be presented earlier in the text.
- 序論で述べた方が良い
This should be also discussed in the introduction.
節・文章・構成などの修正：
- 章の見出しと内容が合っていない
This section treats only genso A and genso B, and does not correspond to the title.
- 不必要では？
I am not sure that the last part of the sentence is necessary.
- 本文中で言及されていないことが書かれている
The statements made in the last paragraph of the section is not referenced with the data presented in the paper.
- 削除せよ
Page 20, para1, line 7-9. Omit sentences, it is repetition of the previous sentence.
- 修正・改訂せよ
I suggest that the organization of the discussion chapter should be revised.
- 修正・改訂せよ
All the passage which follows belongs to "Section A", it would be necessary to present it before, it needs to revise the architecture of the paper.
- こうしたら読みやすくなるよ
The point of the paper is not to discuss geochemical variations on land, and uniform legend would make it easier to follow the transition from land to see.
↑ 目次へ戻る
用語・表現が間違っている（指摘だけ）
- スペルミス
Abc material is misspelled.
- 説明が逆
The wording of the corresponding sentence (p.1; lines 1-5) would need to be reversed.
- 使ってはだめ
Avoid emotional statements "… area C has very interesting spatial …" in the Results section.
- 使ってはだめ
The term "heavy metals" should be avoided, it is poorly defined and its use is often misunderstood.
- 不適切
The term "Eigo Sadoku" is not applicable in geochemistry.
- 正しくない
"diffusion" is not a correct term here because major fraction of omotai genso are most likely adsorbed to particles (nendo, yu-kibutsu) and are distributed and transported together with these particles.
- 分かりにくい
It's not clear what is meant by "substitution inertness" - this needs to be clarified.
- 分かりにくい
It is not clear what is meant by "four finest sediments" - four finest classes (siltoppoi nendo through sunappoi silt) integrated? Similarly what is "nendo sample consisting of four finest sediments"?
- 何かおかしくない？
I'm not at all familiar with the term 'transitional sphere'. Please explain and cite or remove.
用語・表現が間違っている
- この用語はこういう意味だけど（あなたの使い方は間違っているようですが・・・）
Usage of the term 'doped' implies that the ions have been incorporated into the crystal structure.
- 単複の間違い
Lanthanide is used as a singular throughout. It refers to a series of 15 elements therefore should either be used as “the Lanthanides” (plural) or “the Lanthanide Series”.
- 括弧に入れて
In line 5: processes of elements …..….Please indicate several important elements in parentheses.
- IUPACによる化学名を表記すべし
IUPAC nomenclature should be applied - M sulfide or M sulfate?
こちらの表現の方が良いですよ（提案）：指摘だけよりもこちらの方が親切
- 差し替える
"The surface part (2-3 cm)…" replace by "The uppermost 2-3 cm…" (or did you collect the depth interval 2 to 3 cm?).
- 差し替える
The authors use the term "Omotai metals" quite often. I do suggest to replace it by the term "sukunai metals", since elements like M are often included, and because the concentrations shown do justify this broader terminology.
- （表現が）正しくないので～に差し替える
The authors should correct the term Mokomoko in their text and replace it by Naminami or Gizagiza.
- （表現が）正しくないので～に差し替える
'...eight coordination spheres...' is not correct and should be replaced with something such as, 'coordinated by eight oxygen atoms'.
- （表現が）正しくないので～に差し替える
"Keishitsu elements" is not a good term, replace by "elements associated with mikageishi".
- 論文中で使用している用語を全て差し替える
Pollution - should be replaced by "contamination" throughout the manuscript.
- 誤解を避けるために差し替える
I would also replace the word "convey" with "transport" to avoid misunderstandings.
- こっちの方が適切な用語だ
'Finally characterized' implies a great deal of certainty. This comment applies to the first comment above regarding Line 41. "Estimated" may be a better term unless the discussion is strengthened.
- ～の代わりに－を使うべし
In all, 49 elements were identified… use "determined" instead of "identified".
↑ 目次へ戻る
-
abstractは、この研究で、何をして、何が分かり、どのような有効性が得られたか等を述べるものであり、研究手法は数行で説明すべし（つたない論文を査読したときにどうぞ）
In the abstract you should explain the used methodology (sampling and analysis) by a couple of sentences. Remember that abstract should answer to the questions WHAT was done, HOW it was done, and what are the MAIN RESULTS and their APPLICATIONS.
- Resultは客観的な事実報告を素直に行い、結果の解釈はDiscussionにて行う（つたない論文を査読したときにどうぞ）
Results should include a straightforward, objective reporting of your finding. The results should not include interpretation of what the findings mean in light of your own conceptual model nor in light of the literature. Discussion should include interpretation, both in terms of what you think your findings mean in their own right as well as in light of current knowledge as expressed in the published literature.
- これまでの結果（分かっている事）と自分たちの結果の説明がごちゃ混ぜになっている（つたない論文を査読したときにどうぞ）
In your current manuscript, I cannot tell what it is that you found, what it is that other authors reported, how your results illuminate or contradict earlier findings, etc, because it is all jumbled.
- こんな手法が役に立つ訳ないだろう
This discussion will do little to assist in geochemical modeling until it is presented as a tool, of some kind, for use by geochemists.
- 全く無駄な議論だ
In any event, the discussion of mokomoko effect is so poorly presented that it is very ineffective.
- こんな議論はどこか他でやってくれ
If improved, I suggest that such discussion should be submitted elsewhere.
- こんな技術報告のようなものが論文として受理されると思っているのか？
How can we cross from the presentation of such technical reports to one publication?
- 論文の書き方を知っているか？
The presentation suffers from an absence of pedagogy vis-ŕ-vis to the reader.（人を小馬鹿にした表現です）
↑ 目次へ戻る
- 私のコメントがお役に立てれば嬉しい
I hope these comments will be helpful.
- 私のコメントがお役に立てれば嬉しい
I hope that my comment is very useful for the improvement of the article.
- 指摘事項を受け入れて論文を修正して欲しい
I will appreciate it if you accept all suggested corrections, and resubmit your revised manuscript.
↑ 目次へ戻る