Radiation Protection of a 3D Computer Tomography Scanning Workplace for Logs—A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough the manuscript is clearly and well written it is more like a technical report not a scientific paper. I would expect at least description of possible solution how to minimaise the radiation (and not in the conclusion section only).
The Directive related to dose limits should be mentioned – the limit of 1 mSv is typical for the population, for the workers it is usually higher! If the local law is not different it means that discussion is incorrect.
Line 71-73 – it is not clear if Authors mean personnel or patients. Patients sometimes receive relatively high doses, but this is still a benefit, to diagnose the disease.
Quality of measurements is not discussed.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageno comments
Author Response
Thank you very much for the comments of Reviewer 1 and our responses are attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll comments are reported in the attached file.
Please, pay attention and consider all the main comments and suggestions.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Minor editing of English language required. Make uniform the words used in the text.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the comments of Reviewer 2 and our responses are attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript improved and I am satisfied with corrections. However, I still find it like a technical report not a scientific paper. Therefore, the article should be preceded by an appropriate annotation.
Author Response
Thank you forReviewer 1 comments and our responses are attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf