Dear Mr. Van Ranst,

Thank you for submitting the technical note entitled "TRACKFlow, a new versatile microscope system for fission track analysis" to Geochronology. Your manuscript received two solicited reviews by Dr. Hideki Iwano and Prof. Andrew Gleadow, as well as a third review by Dr. Ian Duddy. Having considered the reviews and your initial response to them, I believe that your manuscript is suitable for publication in the journal after major revision.

The three reviews are in broad agreement with each other. To summarise the main points of criticism:

1. The manuscript is too long for a technical note.

You will need to reduce the length of the paper before re-submission. Dr. Iwano has kindly shown how a drastic reduction is possible by simply removing some sections. However, in light of the other comments, I advise that you also rewrite and rephrase the remaining text.

2. The text reads too much like an advertisement brochure.

Your manuscript is the first technical note in Geochronology. So let me confirm that it is completely fine to publish technical notes on commercial products if they are of interest to geochronologists. However, some parts of your manuscript definitely do read like they were copied from the Nikon catalogue. Removing Section 3 from your paper will partly address this issue, but you should check the rest of the manuscript as well.

3. Dr. Duddy made the point that "it is simply not possible to provide a useful review of the software without actually using the system."

I agree with this concern. If a time-limited trial license were available to Dr Iwano and other researchers who own Nikon microscopes, that would facilitate review of the paper as well as improve knowledge of the software within the research community.

4. "there is no information provided indicating how long it takes to do an analysis"

In your response to Dr. Duddy's review, you agree to add such information in the revised manuscript. More specifically, you will specify the image acquisition time for a 'regular' sample and 100 spots on a Durango crystal. Doing so would adequately address the reviewer's comment. You may also want to emphasise that, in contrast with a human operator, an automated microscope system can work 24/7 and through the night.

5. Many of the claimed 'innovations' in TRACKflow have already been implemented in TrackWorks.

I do agree that you need to give more credit to the Melbourne group's pioneering work in the field of automated fission track image acquisition. I understand your reasons for placing a stronger emphasis on the differences between TRACKflow and TrackWorks than on their similarities. However I do not think that this is necessary in a technical note. TrackWorks requires a Zeiss microscope. By bringing the same functionality to Nikon users, your software clearly adds value to a significant segment of the fission track dating community. There is no need to over-emphasise the novelty of your work.

In fact, I believe that the opposite is true. As TrackWorks is already used by the fission-track research community, noting immediately that your software has a similar purpose as TrackWorks but functions on Nikon microscopes is likely an effective way of capturing the attention of readers who are familiar with TrackWorks, but own or prefer Nikon microscopes. An immediate focus on the differences between the software packages may confuse readers who are initially interested in the common functions of both. Of course you should still explain the rationale behind those differences. Your response to Prof. Gleadow's third comment includes a number of good examples of these.

6. The name 'TRACKFlow' is uncomfortably similar to 'TrackWorks'.

Your software can only be used on Nikon microscopes, and is sold by Nikon. Therefore, you should change the title of the paper (and, if possible, the name of your software) to make clear that it is a Nikon product. This will reduce any possible confusion between the two products.

7. A 16Mpx camera is overkill for fission track counting using a 100x objective.

This criticism is best addressed by removing the technical details of your particular microscope from the main body of the paper. However, a short discussion of the minimum hardware requirements would still be useful.

Best wishes,

Pieter Vermeesch

Dear Mr. Van Ranst,

Thank you for addressing all the concerns raised during the first round of review of your Technical Note. It is my pleasure to accept your revised manuscript for publication in Geochronology, on the condition that you make a handful of additional changes requested by Prof. Gleadow. A third round of peer review will not be necessary.

Thank you for choosing Geochronology to publish your work,

Pieter Vermeesch

I concur with Pieter's decision. Please make the additional changes requested by Prof. Gleadow.

Thanks very much for your submission and for your work on revising the paper.

-- Greg Balco