| 查看: 4123 | 回复: 7 | |||
evanustc新虫 (小有名气)
|
[交流]
第一轮审稿给的意见如下？希望大不，是大修还是小修，系统上是REVISED 已有7人参与
|
|
Reviewer #1: This paper presents an overview of a new code capable of performing neutron activation calculations. Validation is described using comparisons with results from the FISPACT code for several benchmarks. A general comment on the paper is that comparisons to another code do not generally constitute validation that comparisons to actual measurements should be described. The comparisons performed involve only 2 materials so, while comparisons are favorable, it is very difficult to make general conclusions on code performance. It would be desirable to describe any new capabilities that are not already available in existing codes. More specific comments are: 1. The paper states: To validate the code, the validation suits which cover almost all neutron induced nuclear activation reactions and complex irradiation scenarios are selected and presented in this paper. However the paper includes only two comparisons with another code. 2. Clearance index is not widely known and should be defined or referenced. 3. Line 40. CRAM is also a Matrix Exponential method. It is not clear in the paper until much later. 4. Line 33. The CRAM method has also been implemented in ORIGEN for several years. The referenced code ORIGEN2 has not been supported for 30 years. See https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2015.04.037 5. Sect 2.1 heading should be nuclear data library 6. Table 1 includes many conversions that do not require defining 7. Sect 3 would be better placed in Sect 2 as code description. It is not clear what term 'improvements' is referring to. 8. Many parts of Sect 3.1 and 3.2 are not clear. A cutoff value is mentioned but not defined. Not clear what is being done beyond removing transition elements that do not contribute to the result. 9. The IAEA activation benchmark should be referenced. 10. The differences in Table 2 and 3 are so small that values are not consequential. Are these tables needed? 11. Reference handbook of activation data 12. Balance equation as cause of differences should be described. 13. Fig. 5. Natural nuclide number. This should be element? or Z? 14. Difference in 'time assumption' should be clarified. Why is there such a difference? Reviewer #2: It has been well established that rigorous nuclear activation calculations are needed for proper construction, operation and decommissioning of nuclear fusion reactors. This paper shows the development and validation of the new activation code AMY. It is significance in this paper and the validation results of AMY seem have good agreement with FISPACT-2007. There are some suggested improvements, which should be addressed for this paper. 1. Some grammar errors should be checked and modified by the author. 2. Different programming languages are different in efficiency. To the reviewer's knowledge, FISPACT-2007 is developed by FORTRAN. In this paper, it is not mentioned that which programming language is used to develop the code. Please introduce in a proper section of the manuscript. 3. The approximation order k is 14 to ensure the accuracy of AMY. Maybe adding more description and literature to illustrate it in Section 2.2. 4. In section 2.3, AMY is currently able to calculate the dose rate of these short-lived nuclides by an approximate method to calculate the S_γ. More details and formulas should be added. 5. The dynamic construction method of transmutation chain is showed in this paper. The different of traditional method and the new method should be introduced in Section 3.1. 6. The code developed adaptive order reduction on matrix method. It can reduce the size of the coefficient matrix and improve the efficiency of the activation calculation. In section 4.1, it is recommended to give specific order number of matrix to validate the effectiveness of the method. 7. By using the natural cases, the results of AMY and FISPACT-2007 show a good agreement. Why did the author choose the results of the 44-th irradiation time step and 6-th cooling time step? |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
FileCode能看出啥？
已经有23人回复
-
应该是93bebmhtak前后十一个字符比较关键
已经有36人回复
-
关于Filecode分析方法
已经有9人回复
-
2019年青年基金涵评意见，大家看看几个A，几个B?
已经有10人回复
-
不应该看fileCode
已经有6人回复
-
好奇怪的filecode
已经有6人回复
-
长年满屏的广告，版主太不责任了。基金也等的急
已经有4人回复
-
filecode
已经有15人回复
-
职称评审，求友友推荐见刊最快的期刊
已经有4人回复
-
奇怪，两个人的filecode固定段从头到尾一模一样
已经有10人回复
ezrazh
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 136 (高中生)
- 金币: 3548.1
- 散金: 50
- 红花: 20
- 帖子: 1008
- 在线: 339小时
- 虫号: 699998
- 注册: 2009-02-12
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 生物地球化学
★ ★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
paperhunter: 金币+1, 鼓励交流 2017-11-20 19:40:24
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
paperhunter: 金币+1, 鼓励交流 2017-11-20 19:40:24
|
编辑没拒稿，让你修改就有希望，好好按照审稿意见逐条修改吧。 发自小木虫Android客户端 |
2楼2017-11-20 18:31:25
liucao1234
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
十年杀猪
- 应助: 253 (大学生)
- 金币: 5803.2
- 散金: 479
- 红花: 35
- 帖子: 1065
- 在线: 609.2小时
- 虫号: 4131326
- 注册: 2015-10-10
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 煤地质学
3楼2017-11-20 18:31:52
fybflying
新虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1961.1
- 散金: 143
- 帖子: 183
- 在线: 23.3小时
- 虫号: 3382653
- 注册: 2014-08-26
- 专业: 金属材料表面科学与工程
4楼2017-11-20 19:20:48
|
祝福 发自小木虫IOS客户端 |
5楼2017-11-20 23:12:58
xmszkx
铁虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 5 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 3373.1
- 散金: 126
- 红花: 8
- 帖子: 1868
- 在线: 315.7小时
- 虫号: 1857713
- 注册: 2012-06-13
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 结构工程
6楼2017-11-21 07:10:34
|
本帖内容被屏蔽 |
7楼2017-11-23 09:35:53
亡命之徒1
新虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1041.1
- 散金: 610
- 红花: 5
- 帖子: 1112
- 在线: 50.6小时
- 虫号: 5540653
- 注册: 2017-02-05
- 专业: 核技术及其应用
8楼2020-02-04 16:32:53
