The need for fission-track data transparency and sharing

Tamer, Murat T.; Chung, Ling; Ketcham, Richard A.; Gleadow, Andrew J. W.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-7-45-2025

Articles | Volume 7, issue 1

https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-7-45-2025

© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-7-45-2025

© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 7, issue 1

Research article

|

25 Feb 2025

Research article |

| 25 Feb 2025

The need for fission-track data transparency and sharing

Murat T. Tamer, Ling Chung, Richard A. Ketcham, and Andrew J. W. Gleadow

Download

Final revised paper (published on 25 Feb 2025)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 09 Oct 2024)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

EC1: 'Corrigendum on gchron-2024-26', Shigeru Sueoka, 18 Oct 2024

The corresponding author has offered to replace the section 3.5 and the title of the section 3.7 with the following.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

3.5 Impact of Experience
The acceptance rate of suitable grains shows only a weak relationship with years of experience (Fig 4a). With increasing years of experience, the acceptance rate of unsuitable grains decreases sharply, while the confined track validity rate increases (Fig 4b). Accordingly, those who admit unsuitable grains at higher rates tend to have lower validity rates of confined track length measurements as well (Fig 4c). These results highlight analyst experience as an important factor in data quality, although some less experienced analysts performed as well as much more experienced ones.
Participant 5 yielded the lowest acceptance rates of 50% for the suitable grains and 0% for unsuitable grains. Participant 5 has been working exclusively on high-quality samples from one region for their entire fission-track experience (5 years), leading to selecting only the best-looking grains. This type of bias has been termed the 'mere-exposure effect' or 'familiarity principle', the tendency to develop preferences for things because they are familiar (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974). An analyst with narrower grain quality experience may miss available thermal history information by omitting objectively suitable, but less familiar, grains.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
3.7 Light Source Preference and a Case Correction on a Single Grain
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I apologize for any inconvenience my carelessness may have caused you.
Shigeru Sueoka

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-2024-26-EC1
RC1:
'Comment on gchron-2024-26', Raymond Donelick, 11 Nov 2024

The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gchron.copernicus.org/preprints/gchron-2024-26/gchron-2024-26-RC1-supplement.pdf

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-2024-26-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Murat Taner Tamer, 17 Dec 2024
  
  We thank reviewer #1 for the comments. Please see the attached pdf for our responses.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-2024-26-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on gchron-2024-26', Edward Sobel, 15 Nov 2024

Review by Ed Sobel of Tamer et al. "The Need for Fission Track Data Transparency"
This study presents an inter-operator study on the quality of fission track analyses; the influence of the operator's skill and judgement on the results are the main focus. After revisions (English usage and more precise descriptions), this will be a very useful study for the fission track community.
I have read Ray Donelick's comments and generally agree with his points. However, I think that the required revisions are primarily textural and therefore are minor rather than major/reject. I would modify his list of 6+ essential steps: 7 (collect photos) has to come before 6b (LA-ICP-MS). I agree with his wish to have more precise statements. Yes, the number of analysts is small, but quantitative statements would be more useful than phrases such as 'show similarities'. The criteria for suitable, unsuitable, or borderline needs to be defined - the text is presently quite short, so there is space to elaborate. Fig. 3 shows data histograms. A more quantitative way to compare histograms would be helpful.
47 Track density can vary by up to 35% if the grain is oriented without the c-axis in the viewing plane

Rephrase: if the grain is not oriented with the c-axis in the viewing plane
58-59 and suffer edge effects from sampling a 4pi region that is variable.

rephrase-perhaps: that hosts variable U concentration

A follow-on conclusion would be that software packages should be modified to provide the option of automatically drawing an ROI that is 10 micron inside the edge of the grain.
~80 Please insert a sentence here stating where the images used in this study can be viewed. Presently one has to reach line 326 to get this information.
Table 1 - I don't understand the suitable grain selection rate. Analyst 1 selected 22 grains as suitable and has a 100% rate; analyst 8: 35 grains, 100%. I find the description of the selection criteria to be confusing.

Rate is the wrong term. A number of grains were selected - this is a scalar unit. Rate implies a speed. This error occurs throughout the ms.

Figs. 1, 3 - rearrange so that these are not in landscape format.

The figures and tables are well drawn and appropriate.

Fig. S1 could be included in the main ms. Table S2 needs a title.
154-5 Although calibration is an essential step before performing an analysis,

This needs justification. How large were the differences in lengths between groups that did and did not perform calibrations? I note that my (old) microscope is quite stable. The change from one calibration to the next is too small to measurably affect lengths - on the order of 0.02-0.03 microns for a 15 micron length and less for a shorter length, which is within measurement error.
185-6: Some of the participants used FastTracks’ automatic tools for c-axis orientation and Dpar length measurements.

this sentence doesn't match the section header (3.3 Post-review follow-up and objectivity of the review). It belongs somewhere else.
189 The density

190 distributions of suitable grains appear to be somewhat more relatable...

more relatable is the wrong phrase. similar? In general, the writing in section 3.4 is rough.
section 3.5 new text: "Accordingly, those who admit unsuitable grains at higher rates "

Admit is the wrong word - select?
231 ...but inclusion of large defects in the ROI...

a large number? I don't think the size of the individual defects is as relevant as their abundance.
148 reasulting typo
Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GChron?

Absolutely

Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?

The paper presents the novel study in which multiple users analyze the exact same apatite fission track crystals. This leads to observations and conclusions about the causes of variability and the reliability of measurements.

Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?

Can be improved - the criteria for grain selection need to be better defined.

Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?

It would be better is some qualified observations were quantified, as discussed above.

Is the description of experiments and calculations sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)?

yes

Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?

yes

Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?

ok. Donelick's suggested title would be an improvement.

Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?

ok. Needs to include the word apatite in the 1st sentence.

Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?

yes

Is the language fluent and precise?

Some English polishing is needed. The language usage light source preference can be imprecise. An example: "light source preference", which actually seems to mean the decision to use reflected as well as transmitted light. The definition of this phrase needs to be clearly stated.

Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used?

Yes - with the exception of the word 'rate', as discussed above.

Should any parts of the paper (text, formulae, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?

on

Are the number and quality of references appropriate?

yes

Is the amount and quality of supplementary material appropriate?

yes

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-2024-26-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Murat Taner Tamer, 17 Dec 2024
  
  We thank reviewer #2 for the comments. Please see the attached pdf for our responses.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gchron-2024-26-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (18 Dec 2024) by Shigeru Sueoka

AR by Murat Taner Tamer on behalf of the Authors (18 Dec 2024)

EF by Vitaly Muravyev (20 Dec 2024) Manuscript Author's response Author's tracked changes

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (25 Dec 2024) by Shigeru Sueoka

RR by Raymond Donelick (06 Jan 2025)

RR by Edward Sobel (08 Jan 2025)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I have read through the authors' comments on the 1st round of reviews and gone through the Author's tracked changes revised text. I think that the authors have done a vey good job of addressing the comments from the 1st round. I found numerous problems with the language usage; I have listed many suggested corrections below, but I doubt that I caught all of the problems. The co-authors are urged to go through the final version of the text.
Therefore, I think that the ms is only requires technical corrections. This will be a useful paper, particularly for teaching new trackers.
Reviewed by E. Sobel

13 show a higher percentage of selecting unsuitable grains
selected a higher percentage of unsuitable grains
if selected (not select), then next line should be changed to provided
14 Less analysis experience
analytical?
20 re-analysed, a global guidance
..., this will provide a global...
21 for new approaches for zeta calibration
...to zeta...?
28 With the precondition
of gathered from suitable grains, Six essential ‘ingredients’ are required for
With the prerequisite that suitable apatite crystals are available, six ....
47 analyst-driven, although
Delete period
60 participants has their
had
62 there has been limited ability to
...been a limited...
73 underestimation of the presence of overlooked defects
This is poorly phrased. underestimation of the number of defects
How can you quantify a feature that you didn't observe?
73-74 may cause the analyst
to lean toward “defect” for questionable features
Unclear - please rephrase
75-6inaccurate,
thereby affecting
replace 'thereby' with 'and'
108 both effects will bias ages lower.
... bias the ages towards lower values
115 The typical number of grains for age measurements for igneous-type samples is ~10 (
I know that the other reviewer didn't like your citation for 20 grains. However you cite it, I don't think that many labs aim for 10 grains. 20 is indeed typical - just look at a handful of data tables.
125 a .xml file
an, not a
170 and 711 add full URL
172 results we repeated
results, we repeated
206 Additionally, heterogeneous U distribution within the grain, judging from the distribution of spontaneous tracks, can be a
complicating factor, especially if LAICPMS spot analysis is used for U determination, but also from misalignment of the
spontaneous and induced track regions of interest using the EDM.
This sentence is jumbled. Judging the U distribution is more complicated in the absence of an EDM print or if the mount and print are misalignment.
211 A confined track length is measurable as long as both ends
are not exposed (Fig 1 m, n) at the surface
If an end is exposed at the surface, the track is not confined. Please rephrase.
213 delete oily. fluid, not fluids (2 fluids in 1 track is probably quite rare).
230 The percentage of valid measurements is reported as the confined track length measurement validity percentage
Not a great sentence. Perhaps reported as the percentage of measured tracks/total valid tracks ? Add : see section 3.4 for details.

Figure captions - especially Fig. 1 - when possible, please put panel labels - e.g., (a) before the relevant text rather than afterwards.
309 312. Hmm. The 30% variation discussed here is so big because of one outlier analyst. Although zeta values may typically vary by 20%, there are also outliers.
336 based on the number of grains selected of each type
based on the number of each grain type
337 total confined
track length measurements
total number of ...
339 reviewer but by some analysts.
... but were measured by ...
340 not specifically how well-etched they are.
not specifically by how well etched the tracks are.
342 density estimates on suitable grains
... based on ... OR derived from
343 density estimates on suitable
of, not on
347 ~0.3 μm, well beyond the precision limit estimated by the standard error,
Please state this precision limit
354 The participants didn't vary; their results did. How about
The confined length histograms indicate that both the number and the choice of tracks measured varied considerably between participants.
355 measurements on suitable grains
from OR of Same comment 357
356 provide
have
Table 3 caption the number of grains selected of each type
the number of grains of each type selected,
Table 4 caption the total confined track length measurements for each analyst
the total number of confined track length measurements for each analyst
620 but number
but the number
635 the track density increases by ~35%.
increased
641 Excluded defect areas and tracks.
This sentence fragment is missing some words. What are the green tracks? This should be stated in the caption - ah - the missing words!
649 delete 'to'
651 delete 'for'. Change 'against' to ‘using
668 perhaps you should add a reminder: "The analyst should remember that not all samples yield usable data."
681 Perhaps note something like "However, it is presently unclear how such data can be modelled with the existing annealing equations.
"668 change 'to avoid' to 'that should be avoided'
690 Exposure is a poor word. Publication.
691 change 'to' to 'in'
693 also pathways
also presents pathways
704 beginning of the fission-track dating method
fission-track dating method was first established
711 Here's a question - is it possible for people to not just look at the grains in this study but also to analyze them in the same way as was done in this study? I.e. - to use this study as a teaching tool.
724 We appreciate all the participants
appreciate the work (or some other word) of all of the participants.
905 yes, the copy editor will fix this, but references should be in alphabetical order.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (09 Jan 2025) by Shigeru Sueoka

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (11 Jan 2025) by Tibor J. Dunai (Editor)

AR by Murat Taner Tamer on behalf of the Authors (11 Jan 2025) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

We present the first new image-based study to reveal how choices made by different analysts affect the results obtained by fission-track analysis. Participants analyzed an identical image dataset with varying grain quality. Experienced analysts tend to select lower numbers of unsuitable grains and conduct lower numbers of invalid length measurements. Fission-track studies need image data repositories, teaching modules, guidelines, an open science culture, and new approaches for calibration.