1. Does the paper address science historical matters within the scope of HGSS?  YES  

2. Does the paper present new historic research, new interpretations or new compilations of historic issues or data, or new aspects of the vitae of important geoscientists? NEEDS IMPROVEMENT     

3. Are the historical methods clearly outlined and the historical sources clearly stated? YES

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

5. Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?  SOMEWHAT

6. Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?  YES

7. Is the overall presentation well structured and clear? NEEDS IMPROVEMENT 

8. Is the language fluent and precise?  NEEDS IMPROVEMENT    

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

This manuscript aims to evaluate the life and achievements of Cevat Eyüp Taşman, the first Turkish petroleum geologist. While he certainly deserves scholarly attention, in my view the manuscript suffers from several major shortcomings:

1. First and foremost, the manuscript is a little difficult to follow. Although the English grammar and syntax can certainly be corrected, this is not the primary issue. The main problem lies in the overall framework and organization of the text. There are single subsections (3.1 and 4.1) which should be omitted and parts within the text that disrupt semantic coherence.

The author should substantially restructure the manuscript along clearer lines, for example:

(a) Introduction

(b) Materials and methods (if necessary)

(c) Taşman’s life and career

(d) Analysis of Taşman’s main qualities—technical, institutional, legal, etc. (each discussed under separate subsections)

(e) Conclusions and discussion

2. The style of writing gives the impression that the author is continuously attempting to praise—or even idolize—Taşman. While Taşman was indeed a pioneer who made significant contributions during the early phase of petroleum geology in Turkey, his qualities and achievements should be presented in a more neutral and analytical tone.

3. The manuscript relies excessively on aphoristic labels. Taşman is first described as “critical human capital,” then as a “Western-trained national expert,” and later as a “state-employed public intellectual.” In addition, the author introduces multiple “pillars” to characterize Taşman—four proposed by the author and three adopted from Akcan (2024). Unfortunately, the manuscript appears to be overly influenced by Akcan (2024); some subheadings are even identical. The author should develop a more original and independent analysis of Taşman and discuss it in detail, particularly in section (d) outlined above.

4. The various errors I have marked throughout the manuscript should be corrected (see the annotated PDF file). In addition, new and relevant references should be added, while incorrect or inappropriate references should be removed or revised.

5. The manuscript could also benefit from providing more information on Taşman’s early life, such as his exact date of birth, family background, and childhood, where possible.

I believe that the manuscript requires major revision and I would be happy to re-evaluate the revised version if the author chooses to resubmit it.

1. Does the paper address science historical matters within the scope of HGSS?  yes  

2. Does the paper present new historical research, new interpretations, or new compilations of historical issues or data, or new aspects of the vitae of important geoscientists? needs improvement     

3. Are the historical methods clearly outlined and the historical sources clearly stated? yes

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

5. Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?  needs revision

6. Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?  yes

7. Is the overall presentation well structured and clear? revision 

8. Is the language fluent and precise?  ok    

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

Here’s a detailed revision of your text with improvements for clarity, academic tone, and flow. I’ve broken it down into sections, making it more structured and scholarly while keeping the core information intact. I've also highlighted areas that need further clarification or revision.

Review and Suggested Revisions

Overview

The manuscript examines the life and professional contributions of Cevat Eyüp Taşman, the first Turkish petroleum geologist, but several aspects need clarification and refinement. The following suggestions are based on the content and aim to enhance the manuscript's focus from a history of science perspective.

Cevat Eyüp Taşman is described as a pioneer in the development of Turkey's petroleum industry. While the statement holds potential, it requires a more substantiated and scientifically rigorous presentation. Specifically, it would benefit from greater attention to his scientific contributions rather than merely asserting his pioneering status. The text must provide critical context and analysis regarding his contributions to petroleum geology and their long-term significance.

Cevat Eyüp Taşman was a pioneer in every sense of the word, specifically in what way he pioneered the field. For instance, mention his methodological innovations, collaborations with international experts, or specific geological discoveries.

Discuss how his work fits into the broader history of science and geology in Turkey, emphasizing scientific advancements.

The section on Taşman’s education at Robert College and Columbia University is mostly informative, but lacks a deeper analysis of how his training shaped his scientific outlook and professional career.

Robert College has the significance of his education, which is not fully contextualized.  Why Robert College was important for Ottoman and early Turkish students, particularly for scientific and technological studies. The text should link his Western-style education to the intellectual context of the Ottoman modernization movement.

The phrase "After decades of Ottoman experience with Europe during 1910’s US began to play a role in shaping the future renewal of the Ottoman Empire" is unclear. It would benefit from being rewritten to specify how the U.S. began to shape the intellectual and scientific landscape in the post-Ottoman period.

Robert College was the first American institution of higher education outside the United States.

The first Ottoman students were sent to the US for studies at Columbia University in 1911.

During his education at Robert College, Taşman earned the appreciation of his teachers. For Ottoman-era RC graduates, strong English, solid math and science preparation, and familiarity with American pedagogy.

CU was globally prestigious for students from empires undergoing industrial and infrastructural modernization.

He was one of four students chosen by the government to pursue higher education in the US, studying mining engineering at the School of Mines of Columbia University.

Further Clarifications

You mention Djevad Eyoub in several places (He appears by name in Levermore (p 155 and 215), but this name does not appear in the sources (CU Catalog, etc.). Ensure consistency in naming and verify this reference.

Regarding Taşman’s degree from Columbia University, the manuscript mentions him earning a Bachelor of Science in mining engineering, but it should be clarified whether he also obtained a Master’s degree, and if so, whether his thesis should be available. 

Eyoub studied at CU, likely graduating with a Bachelor of Science. By the early 1920’s, he was working professionally as a mining engineer and appearing in industry publications (Engineering & Mining Journal Press, January 20, 1923).

Scientific Contributions

Taşman’s contributions to Turkey’s petroleum industry are crucial to the manuscript’s aims but need to be presented with greater precision and detail. It’s important to highlight his methodological innovations, his scientific collaborations, and his role in shaping Turkey’s oil exploration practices.

For example,  Taşman’s team in southeastern Anatolia found the first economic reserve in the Upper Cretaceous units at Mount Raman. This is an important contribution, but it requires a more detailed explanation regarding the geological methods and team structure. Were these methods innovative at the time? How did his work compare to international standards?

The comparison of Taşman’s work with Russian counterparts on page 5 (line 145) is questionable, as it seems to be based on assumptions rather than solid evidence.  The text should reflect this more accurately and reconsider the basis of any Russian comparisons.

He worked with the experienced petroleum geologists, paleontologists, and geophysicists. In particular, Louis Vonderschmidt was a petroleum geologist spending 11 years in Venezuela, and investigated in the SE Anatolia with Taşman. Sidney Page, an American geologist, and İhsan Ruhi Berent, a mining engineer (Sarigul 2021), were critical to Taşman’s work. In their report, they recommended drilling deeper wells into the older strata. With this assessment, the first reserve was found in an Upper Cretaceous reef of Mount Raman (e.g., Taşman 1950). More attention should be given to these collaborations, explaining how they shaped both his professional trajectory and Turkey’s oil exploration techniques.

Mindset transformation is mentioned, but needs to be clarified. This section could explore how methodological shifts in geology, including the use of micropaleontology and geophysical mapping techniques, were crucial for Turkey’s scientific and industrial progress.

The text could mention Taşman’s role in the early formation of Turkey's petroleum industry as part of state-building during a time when industrialization was paramount. The high standards of living at the oil camps in the 1950s—e.g., cinemas, tennis courts, swimming pools—are notable and should be framed as part of social and institutional transformations.

Personal and Social Context

The personal life of Cevat Eyüp Taşman, including his second marriage to Melike İzgi, is described briefly, but this section should be framed within the broader scientific and social transformations of the 1950s. The working conditions of the oil fields, including the presence of families in the field dorms, are an interesting social aspect that could be further explored.

Mehlika İzgi, who graduated American College for Girls in Istanbul in 1935. She got involved with his work by translating geology reports in MTA. Micropaleontologist Louise Jordan led her deepening interest in the field and pursued an MA study at the University of Texas, Austin (Okay 2024).

She had graduated and her thesis:

İzgi M. Foraminifera from test wells in Adana, Turkey. Thesis(MA) Univ. Texas at Austin, 1940. https://search.lib.utexas.edu/permalink/01UTAU_INST/9e1640/alma991025878999706011

Okay N (2024). The first female petroleum geologist (in Turkish). Mehlika İzgi Taşman Ribnikar (1912-2007) Mavi Gezegen 32: 5-12.

Further Comments on Structure and Citations

1. Repetition: There are areas of unnecessary repetition. The text should be streamlined for conciseness and clarity.

2. Incorporation of key sources:

   You reference Akcan (2024) as a study that fills in gaps about Taşman’s work. This could be a key scholarly resource to support the manuscript and should be integrated into the discussion.

   Several additional references are suggested, such as:

   • Ergin K (1957), which would add important context on Taşman’s legacy (Kazım Ergin was one of the best friend of Taşman's)

   • Sarıgül V (2021) on paleontology and its history in Turkey, which could inform the discussion of Taşman’s scientific network.

    

3. Final Section: The conclusion needs revision to tie together the manuscript’s central arguments and findings. Currently, it seems somewhat disconnected. The historical significance of Taşman’s contributions to Turkey’s petroleum industry should be emphasized.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Overall, the manuscript addresses an important subject but requires substantial revision to strengthen its academic structure. Specifically, the text should:

More clearly articulate Taşman’s scientific contributions and methodological innovations.

Reduce unnecessary repetition and focus more on the historical context of Taşman’s work in the broader development of Turkey’s petroleum industry.

Incorporate additional sources to substantiate the claims and to ensure the study is well-grounded in the relevant historiography.

After making these revisions, the manuscript will provide valuable insights into an essential figure in the history of Turkish geology.

This revision provides a more structured, academic approach to your draft while keeping the focus on the key points.

The manuscript brings together biographical information that may be of interest to historians of science and technology, as well as to scholars concerned with the development of national expertise in the earth sciences.