Neutronic Study on Ac-225 Production for Cancer Therapy by (n,2n) Reaction of Ra-226 or Th-230 Using Fast Reactor Joyo
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, the manuscript is not a scientific publication. The authors present simple calculations of the radioactive equilibrium and the parameters for obtaining .225Ac and other radionuclides in the Joyo fast reactor. Non-original separation methods have also been proposed. I don't see any sense in publishing this manuscript.
Of course, it can be published after conducting experiments, even with small Ra-226 and Th-230 targets. Then the parameters of a new method of obtaining Ac-225 and its separation from the target could be presented. You can also compare the experimental data with the authors' predictions.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study is significant and the results should be published. But the presentation and text editing need the careful revision.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors presented a study under title of Examination of Ac-225 production from Ra-226 or Th-230 using 2 fast reactor Joyo
The study is good, but it needs a lot of clarification of the experimental part and methodology design
The introduction needs to be improved
The discussion part should discuss the advantages of their methods over other methods
The authors has to discuss the availability of the target material worldwide and if there are other reactors similar to JOYO reactor that can do the same reactions
Author Response
Thank you very much for your important comments.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript and offering valuable advice.
We have addressed your comments with point-by-point responses, and revised the manuscript accordingly.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I still believe that the work may make sense after conducting the experiments. I don't understand why the experiments were not carried out.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Accept
Author Response
Thank you for accept.
We have corrected the English language.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I can accept the authors' arguments. The work can be published. I am just asking you to add these arguments in the conclusion
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
Future experimental plans are described in the conclusion section.
Round 4
Reviewer 1 Report
Now the manuscript can be accepted
