Content of review 1, reviewed on August 13, 2017

  • Overall topic is very interesting; however, regardless technical issues way of scientific writing and length are principal impressions. Authors tried to put plenty of information in this one article. However, I have following suggestions regarding the submission.
  • Topic is lengthy and complicated. It contains list of abbreviations and nomenclature which is not required here specifically. If nomenclature is not the standard one, explain it in the footnotes of that particular page.
  • In its current state, no impressive conclusion and/or policy/deliverable output present. It sounds a simple review (collection of scattered stuff).
  • What message/policy/solution of a problem is identified or suggested through this study? This seems like a project report from the abstract. Abstract provides a project impression instead of scientific journal article.
  • Figure 1 is unclear and complicated.
  • Section 4 is unnecessarily lengthy.
  • Table 2 again complex and having plenty of information which makes look messy. Is it possible to remove some information? Infact better to present some of information in written form and rest in table form.
  • Also there is need to revise the conclusion part completely in order to make it different from results and discussion.
  • Numbers of references are too many but among them, chosen from RSER are none. Why so? No need to put 200 references for such write up. Submission of your article to this journal shows the strong linkage of article to the journal. However, your references section does not depict so.
  • Please go through the authors' guideline as well.
  • Conclusively, huge rewriting and extra effort is required to get this paper published. It is not acceptable at this stage.

Source

    © 2017 the Reviewer (CC BY 4.0).

References

    Hamid, O., Ashok, K., Dong-Shik, K. 2015. Recent studies on soot modeling for diesel combustion. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.