The reviewer notes several issues with how data was extracted from Figure 4 of Reference 9 and included in Table 1 of the manuscript. Specifically, the software WINDIG used does not return errors, but Table 1 includes errors, and the data extracted is from a simulation curve rather than experimental data points in the figure. The reviewer also questions why data presented clearly in Reference 9's own Table 1 was not used directly. Comparing the two tables, the reviewer found the measured and simulated data differ between them. This could affect the correctness of the results. Additionally, if published readers may wonder why the data does not match between the reference and manuscript. The reviewer also notes a radioisotope in Table 1 is incorrectly labeled as Ba instead of

1. Review comments:
Regarding to the data of Table 1, The authors explained that WINDIG 2.5, the extracted data software,
was used to extract the data from the Figure 4 of reference 9 (S.H. Byun, W.V. Prestwich, K. Chin, F.E.
McNeill, D.R. Chettle, “Efficiency calibration and coincidence summing correction for a 4π NaI(Tl)
detector array”, Nucl. Instr. Meth. Phys. Res. A, 535, 3 (2004);
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2004.06.174).
I have checked the performance of WINDIG by reference some technical papers about WINDIG, and I
have also installed WINDIG and tried to extract data from the Figure 4 of Reference 9. I recognized
that some problems arise as:
1. WINDIG do not return the error of extracting data, but in Table 1 including the errors
2. In Figure 4 of reference 9, the total efficiencies of the experiment were depicted by square dots, but
the curved line presented the simulated data of total efficiency. By using WINDIG, It is not correct to
extract the data from the simulation.
I also wonder why in the Reference 9, the data were presented clearly in Table 1 with including the
errors, but the author did not use it? Also, when comparison between the data from the Table 1 of the
manuscript and the date from Table 1 of reference 9, I recognized that the measured and simulated data
between two tables are different. With the differences, it affected to the correctness of final results.
In addition, if this manuscript will be published, the readers will wonder why the data in the reference
are not same within the manuscript.
In Table 1. the radioisotope with energy 0.662 MeV is 137Cs, not Ba. Please correct it again.