Environmental Impact of Sulaimani Steel Plant (Kurdistan Region, Iraq) on Soil Geochemistry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is very important in field

While, need improved language editing

Where the part of statistical analysis

The conclusion needed improved 

Author Response

we thank a lot the reviewer for the suggestion and constructive remarks. the attached word file is our repose for all points.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Attached you will find some details that you need to improve. A lot of figs could be transferred into results. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are so grateful to the reviewer for the suggestion and constructive comments. The attached file is our response to the remarks.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewer is really grateful to the editor for allowing them to evaluate this submission. The review article soil systems-1941619, "Environmental impact assessment of steel plant on soil geochemistry, case study of Sulaimani steel plant, Kurdistan Region, Iraq," is appealing and contains information that the readers will find useful. The review article is normally organized and well-written. The authors also provide further details on this subject. But before it is accepted, several changes must be made. Here are some broad remarks:

1.    The authors should explain the paper's novelty in the introduction section before stating the work's objectives.

2. Line 121, is collecting soil samples by a shovel a good technique? Another sampler could be better, for better lab analysis of soil samples.

3. The lab instruments ( names, selling company's name, city and country) used for soil analyses should be provided.

4. Recent references should be given. Most are outdated through the MS.

 

 

5.  Some grammatical errors and punctuation must be fixed and polished.

 

6. Lines 126-133, sentences overlap with other published information. Try to rewrite them; otherwise, it will be anti-ethical.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for all the constructive remarks and suggestion. The attached file is our response to all comments.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

It is 18% plagiarism

Paper not novel, but relevant

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thanks the reviewer for the all constructive remarks and suggestion. The attached file is the response for all points.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Table 1 is missing

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Table 1 was added to the Manuscript's 2nd round revision.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf