Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- archive:appds:restricted:publications:dataj2018 [05/07/2024 19:03] – removed - external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1
+++ archive:appds:restricted:publications:dataj2018 [05/07/2024 19:03] (current) – ↷ Page moved from grants:archive:appds:restricted:publications:dataj2018 to archive:appds:restricted:publications:dataj2018 admin
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+====== Data Journal 2018 ======
+Link to draft: https://v2.overleaf.com/6199937247gvmgxsnhhbjr \\
+Information about issue: http://www.mdpi.com/journal/data/special_issues/Astro_Geophy \\
+Deadline: 12.10.2018 \\
+Editors: Shigarov, Kostunin, Haungs, Kryukov
+Preprint: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201810.0273/v1
+===== Ref. reports =====
+==== Report 1 ====
+^                                                                                           ^ Yes  | Can be improved  | Must be improved  | Not applicable  |
+| Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?  | ( )  | (x)              | ( )               | ( )             |
+| Is the research design appropriate?                                                       | ( )  | (x)              | ( )               | ( )             |
+| Are the methods adequately described?                                                     | (x)  | ( )              | ( )               | ( )             |
+| Are the results clearly presented?                                                        | (x)  | ( )              | ( )               | ( )             |
+| Are the conclusions supported by the results?                                             | ( )  | (x)              | ( )               | ( )             |
+Comments and Suggestions for Authors
+Journal Data (ISSN 2306-5729)
+Manuscript ID data-379348
+Title: “Russian-German Astroparticle Data Life Cycle Initiative”
+Authors: Igor Bychkov, et al.
+In this paper authors report current work and stage of the Rus-Ger Astroparticle Data Life Cycle Initiative and service called ASTROPARTICLE.ONLINE. The manuscript represents interesting contribution with mainly preliminary results but with amount of new information. I believe that the results will be interesting for potential readers and I would like to recommend publications of this paper.
+Before publication I ask authors to correct following:
+-The abstract should be rewritten, i.e. shortened and important stressed.
+-  Authors should give full affiliation e.g.
+Matrosov Institute for System Dynamics and Control Theory, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Irkutsk, Russia => 1 Matrosov Institute for System Dynamics and Control Theory, Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Irkutsk,  P. O. Box 1233, 664033, Irkutsk, Lermontova st., 134
+same goes for all other affiliations.
+-In the first paragraph in the Introduction (page 1), the authors should insert appropriate references because currently there is not one in this paragraph. Also, authors could insert more references from the literature in the rest of the manuscript.
+-Page 3, line 85: “The other example is the ground-based experiment LSST [6], providing over 3 gigapixels per image ...” => “The other example is the ground-based experiment LSST [6], which will provide over 3 gigapixels per image ...”
+LSST  ﬁrst light is expected around next year or later.
+-In Author Contribution authors should use initials e.g.
+Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Andreas Haungs, Dmitriy Kostunin and Alexander Kryukov; … => Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A. H., D. K. and A. K.; …
+-In References: All references should be written in the same way, according to the journal style.
+For Journal Name authors should use Abbreviated Journal Name
+e.g. in
+ref 12 Physics of Atomic Nuclei => Phys Atom Nucl
+ref 7 Industrial and Corporate Change => Indus. & Corp. Change
+also in
+ref 1 Haungs, A.; others. => Haungs, A.; et al.
+ref 6 Abell, P.A.; others. => Abell, P.A. et al.
+…etc
+Respectfully,
+==== Report 2 ====
+|                                                                                           | Yes  | Can be improved  | Must be improved  | Not applicable  |
+| Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?  | (x)  | ( )              | ( )               | ( )             |
+| Is the research design appropriate?                                                       | ( )  | ( )              | ( )               | (x)             |
+| Are the methods adequately described?                                                     | ( )  | ( )              | ( )               | (x)             |
+| Are the results clearly presented?                                                        | ( )  | ( )              | ( )               | (x)             |
+| Are the conclusions supported by the results?                                             | (x)  | ( )              | ( )               | ( )             |
+Comments and Suggestions for Authors
+This manuscript does not present original research. It is a proposal or perspective (or whitepaper) paper for a service called ASTROPARTICLE ONLINE. Currently, there are only 3 types of manuscripts in this journal: Data Descriptors, Articles, and Review. The editor should decide which type should be assigned to it: perspective or whitepaper article.
+==== Report 3 ====
+^                                                                                           ^ Yes  | Can be improved  | Must be improved  | Not applicable  |
+| Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?  | (x)  | ( )              | ( )               | ( )             |
+| Is the research design appropriate?                                                       | (x)  | ( )              | ( )               | ( )             |
+| Are the methods adequately described?                                                     | (x)  | ( )              | ( )               | ( )             |
+| Are the results clearly presented?                                                        | (x)  | ( )              | ( )               | ( )             |
+| Are the conclusions supported by the results?                                             | (x)  | ( )              | ( )               | ( )             |
+Comments and Suggestions for Authors
+The manuscript "Russian-German Astroparticle Data Life Cycle Initiative" by I. Bychkov et al proposes the creation of an 'open science system which enables to publish, store, search, select and analyse astroparticle physics data". If this was a proposal and not a paper then it would have to be reviewed on a different basis judging its feasibility, scope, etc. As a paper, however, I do not find something very wrong with it except from the fact that is putting more emphasis on the management part and less on the science. Also it contains some parts that need more justification. For example, I found the statement  "charged particles, gamma-rays or neutrinos, measured by different large-scale facilities globally distributed, should be combined to obtain increased knowledge of the high-energy Universe" confusing. While I can understand that the simultaneous detection of gamma-rays and neutrinos can help us deduce the physics of sources like AGNs (see the recent IceCube discovery of neutrinos coming from the direction of blazar TXS 0506+056), I cannot understand what would be the role of Cosmic Rays in this picture. Furthermore, gamma-rays by themselves do not tell the whole story but there are other wavebands that have to be combined in order to understand the physics of High Energy sources as at least 25 years of multiwavelength observations have shown.  Therefore, I think that the authors in order to make their arguments more convincing they will have to put more emphasis on the physical arguments of their manuscript and answer the question on what will be the scientific gains coming out of this effort. As it is now. the manuscript reads more like a dry technical report.
+=== Academic Editor Notes ===
+The type of the text is certainly Articles but the authors have to put more emphasis on the science than on the management part in the revised manuscript.  But they do not need to overdo in order not to lose on their authenticity.
+===== Checklist of the minor revisions (R1) =====
+  - <todo #shigarov:2018-11-12>Technical correction with Journal requirements, read the reviewer 1 (A. Shigarov)</todo>
+  - <todo #shigarov:2018-11-13>Extend the literature survey by additional references, read the review report 1 (E. Postnikov)</todo>
+  - <todo #shigarov:2018-11-13>Rewrite the abstract, read the review report 1 (A. Kryukov)</todo>
+  - <todo #shigarov:2018-11-12>Add a subsection with contribution description as a reply to the review report 2 (A. Shigarov)</todo>
+  - <todo #shigarov:2018-11-13>Add a discussion on the astrophysics questions mentioned by the review report 3 (E. Postnikov)</todo>
+  - <todo #shigarov:2018-11-12>English proofreading (J. Dubenskaya)</todo>
+  - <todo #shigarov:2018-11-12>Spelling of Tokareva's name</todo>
+  - <todo #shigarov:2018-11-12>Add Dongwha to authors</todo>
+  - <todo #mikhailov:2018-12-06>Write responses to the reviewers (A. Shigarov)</todo>
+===== To do after publication =====
+  - <todo #mikhailov:2018-12-06>Upload paper to arxiv</todo>