The Fate of Y.S. Ma, China's First Female Geologist

Yin, Jian Zhao

doi:10.5194/hgss-2026-6

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2026-6

Preprints

27 Mar 2026

| 27 Mar 2026

Status: a revised version of this preprint was accepted for the journal HGSS and is expected to appear here in due course.

The Fate of Y.S. Ma, China's First Female Geologist

Jian Zhao Yin

Abstract. In April 1944 during the War of Resistance against Japan, three young scientists were killed by bandits in the field. Among the three were Ms. Y.S. Ma, the only female geologist in China at the time, a young geologist fluent in five foreign languages despite never having been abroad, and Mr. T.Y. Hsu and Mr. K. Chen, both budding and accomplished geologists. They were killed on the same day, at the ages of 25, 36, and 28 respectively. This year marks the 82nd anniversary of their tragic deaths. This article is dedicated to these three young scholars who died before achieving their goals, leaving future generations deeply saddened.

Received: 19 Mar 2026 – Discussion started: 27 Mar 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Jian Zhao Yin

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on hgss-2026-6', Zhihui Zhang, 05 May 2026

Review Summary
This manuscript explores a case of significant historical importance and emotional resonance, supported by valuable archival materials and secondary literature. However, in its current form, the manuscript does need some revisions.
Firstly, the overall positioning of the paper is unclear. The manuscript reads more like a commemorative narrative than a rigorous academic study. It lacks a clearly defined research question and fails to sufficiently develop analytical arguments. Consequently, its academic contribution remains implicit rather than explicitly articulated.
Secondly, the language style is not sufficiently academic. The text contains a large amount of emotional and literary expression, including evaluative and rhetorical statements. While these elements may enhance readability, they undermine the objectivity and analytical tone essential for scholarly work.
Thirdly, there is an imbalance in the structure. The paper is dominated by detailed narrative descriptions, focusing singularly on a female scientist who passed away early due to an accident, yet there is a scarcity of materials directly related to her. Due to the absence of a clear discussion section, the manuscript fails to move beyond mere description to the level of interpretation.
Recommendations for Revision
To improve the quality of the manuscript and bring it closer to publication standards, we strongly recommend the following revisions.
Most importantly, the author should clarify the research objectives in the introduction. The paper should explicitly state its analytical intent—for instance, aiming to explore the risks of scientific fieldwork in wartime China, the institutional role of the Geological Survey of China, or the gender dimensions within the early Chinese scientific community—rather than serving primarily as a commemorative account.
Furthermore, the author should attempt to place this female scholar within an academic network to analyze the state of Chinese society and the development of the discipline of geology at that time, rather than writing solely about her as an individual; this approach would yield richer material. Attention should also be paid to removing or rewriting emotional or rhetorical expressions, transforming them into neutral, evidence-based statements.
Equally critical is the necessity of introducing a dedicated section for analysis or discussion. This section should interpret the historical materials and situate the case within broader academic themes, such as science and the state, scientific practices during wartime, or the status of women in early modern science in China.
In addition to these core revisions, the manuscript should condense the biographical and narrative sections, reducing redundancy while retaining key information.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2026-6-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jet Yin, 06 May 2026
  
  Thank you very much for the time and professional comments from Ms. Zhang. Once all the review feedback is received, the author will carefully revise the manuscript based on the experts' comments.
  Best wishes,
  Jet
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2026-6-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on hgss-2026-6', Yongqiang Yang, 10 Jun 2026

Recommendation: Minor Revision
This paper reconstructs the lives and tragic deaths of Y.S. Ma, T.Y. Hsu, and K. Chen, three geologists of the Geological Survey of China murdered during a field expedition in Guizhou Province in April 1944. The subject is clearly within HGSS scope, and the author's primary contribution, consolidating dispersed Chinese-language primary and secondary sources into a coherent English-language account, is a genuine service to the international history-of-science community. The contemporaneous Geological Review obituary, the unpublished GSC documents, and the interrogation record mediated through Hou (1944) together form a reasonably solid evidentiary base, and the narrative sections (particularly sections 4 and 5) make good use of this material.
The article would benefit from a clearer indication, at least in passing, of which claims rest on primary documents versus post-reform retrospective scholarship (Li 2020, Liao 2015/2020). This need not be elaborate, a brief note in the introduction would suffice, but it would help readers calibrate the reliability of specific details.
The 1929 murder of Y.T. Chao is referenced at multiple points across different sections; consolidating these mentions into a single background passage would avoid repetition and improve the flow.
If space permits, it would also be worth briefly expanding on the longer-term academic legacy of the three memorial prizes established in 1945. The fact that seven recipients of the Y.S. Ma Award were later elected to the Chinese Academy of Sciences is mentioned almost in passing, and deserves a sentence or two more given how well it illustrates the lasting influence of these scholars on Chinese geoscience.
There are two minor copyediting issues worth correcting before publication. On line 72, "her had passed away" appears to be a pronoun error for "her father." Separately, on line 80, Ms. Ma's academic ranking is described with the pronoun "his," almost certainly an inadvertent slip. Neither affects the substance of the paper but both should be caught in final editing.
These are small matters overall. The paper makes a worthwhile contribution to the historical record of Chinese geoscience and of women in early twentieth-century science more broadly, and I recommend acceptance following minor revision.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2026-6-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jet Yin, 10 Jun 2026
  
  Hi there,
  Thank you very much for your time and efforts in trying to make this manuscript better.
  Your review comments are very pertinent. I will consider and carefully revise the manuscript after receiving all review comments.
  Thank you again.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2026-6-AC2
EC1: 'Comment on hgss-2026-6', Kristian Schlegel, 29 Jun 2026

The author is now asked to answer the remarks of the referees point-by-point. The editor rates the remarks of referee #1as very important, the author should address all three points ("Firstly, Secondly ,...") in detail and revise the manuscript accordingly. The editor also suggests to concentrate on the facts and avoid emotional formulations which are not appropriate for a scientic paper.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2026-6-EC1

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on hgss-2026-6', Zhihui Zhang, 05 May 2026

Review Summary
This manuscript explores a case of significant historical importance and emotional resonance, supported by valuable archival materials and secondary literature. However, in its current form, the manuscript does need some revisions.
Firstly, the overall positioning of the paper is unclear. The manuscript reads more like a commemorative narrative than a rigorous academic study. It lacks a clearly defined research question and fails to sufficiently develop analytical arguments. Consequently, its academic contribution remains implicit rather than explicitly articulated.
Secondly, the language style is not sufficiently academic. The text contains a large amount of emotional and literary expression, including evaluative and rhetorical statements. While these elements may enhance readability, they undermine the objectivity and analytical tone essential for scholarly work.
Thirdly, there is an imbalance in the structure. The paper is dominated by detailed narrative descriptions, focusing singularly on a female scientist who passed away early due to an accident, yet there is a scarcity of materials directly related to her. Due to the absence of a clear discussion section, the manuscript fails to move beyond mere description to the level of interpretation.
Recommendations for Revision
To improve the quality of the manuscript and bring it closer to publication standards, we strongly recommend the following revisions.
Most importantly, the author should clarify the research objectives in the introduction. The paper should explicitly state its analytical intent—for instance, aiming to explore the risks of scientific fieldwork in wartime China, the institutional role of the Geological Survey of China, or the gender dimensions within the early Chinese scientific community—rather than serving primarily as a commemorative account.
Furthermore, the author should attempt to place this female scholar within an academic network to analyze the state of Chinese society and the development of the discipline of geology at that time, rather than writing solely about her as an individual; this approach would yield richer material. Attention should also be paid to removing or rewriting emotional or rhetorical expressions, transforming them into neutral, evidence-based statements.
Equally critical is the necessity of introducing a dedicated section for analysis or discussion. This section should interpret the historical materials and situate the case within broader academic themes, such as science and the state, scientific practices during wartime, or the status of women in early modern science in China.
In addition to these core revisions, the manuscript should condense the biographical and narrative sections, reducing redundancy while retaining key information.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2026-6-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jet Yin, 06 May 2026
  
  Thank you very much for the time and professional comments from Ms. Zhang. Once all the review feedback is received, the author will carefully revise the manuscript based on the experts' comments.
  Best wishes,
  Jet
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2026-6-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on hgss-2026-6', Yongqiang Yang, 10 Jun 2026

Recommendation: Minor Revision
This paper reconstructs the lives and tragic deaths of Y.S. Ma, T.Y. Hsu, and K. Chen, three geologists of the Geological Survey of China murdered during a field expedition in Guizhou Province in April 1944. The subject is clearly within HGSS scope, and the author's primary contribution, consolidating dispersed Chinese-language primary and secondary sources into a coherent English-language account, is a genuine service to the international history-of-science community. The contemporaneous Geological Review obituary, the unpublished GSC documents, and the interrogation record mediated through Hou (1944) together form a reasonably solid evidentiary base, and the narrative sections (particularly sections 4 and 5) make good use of this material.
The article would benefit from a clearer indication, at least in passing, of which claims rest on primary documents versus post-reform retrospective scholarship (Li 2020, Liao 2015/2020). This need not be elaborate, a brief note in the introduction would suffice, but it would help readers calibrate the reliability of specific details.
The 1929 murder of Y.T. Chao is referenced at multiple points across different sections; consolidating these mentions into a single background passage would avoid repetition and improve the flow.
If space permits, it would also be worth briefly expanding on the longer-term academic legacy of the three memorial prizes established in 1945. The fact that seven recipients of the Y.S. Ma Award were later elected to the Chinese Academy of Sciences is mentioned almost in passing, and deserves a sentence or two more given how well it illustrates the lasting influence of these scholars on Chinese geoscience.
There are two minor copyediting issues worth correcting before publication. On line 72, "her had passed away" appears to be a pronoun error for "her father." Separately, on line 80, Ms. Ma's academic ranking is described with the pronoun "his," almost certainly an inadvertent slip. Neither affects the substance of the paper but both should be caught in final editing.
These are small matters overall. The paper makes a worthwhile contribution to the historical record of Chinese geoscience and of women in early twentieth-century science more broadly, and I recommend acceptance following minor revision.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2026-6-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jet Yin, 10 Jun 2026
  
  Hi there,
  Thank you very much for your time and efforts in trying to make this manuscript better.
  Your review comments are very pertinent. I will consider and carefully revise the manuscript after receiving all review comments.
  Thank you again.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2026-6-AC2
EC1: 'Comment on hgss-2026-6', Kristian Schlegel, 29 Jun 2026

The author is now asked to answer the remarks of the referees point-by-point. The editor rates the remarks of referee #1as very important, the author should address all three points ("Firstly, Secondly ,...") in detail and revise the manuscript accordingly. The editor also suggests to concentrate on the facts and avoid emotional formulations which are not appropriate for a scientic paper.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-2026-6-EC1

Jian Zhao Yin

Viewed

Total article views: 489 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
287	135	67	489	92	94

HTML: 287
PDF: 135
XML: 67
Total: 489
BibTeX: 92
EndNote: 94

Views and downloads (calculated since 27 Mar 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2026	51	17	8	76
May 2026	69	9	3	81
Jun 2026	41	4	5	50
Jul 2026	31	2	3	36
Aug 2026	15	2	0	17
Sep 2026	47	56	42	145
Oct 2026	33	45	6	84

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 27 Mar 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Apr 2026	51	17	8	76
May 2026	69	9	3	81
Jun 2026	41	4	5	50
Jul 2026	31	2	3	36
Aug 2026	15	2	0	17
Sep 2026	47	56	42	145
Oct 2026	33	45	6	84

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 477 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 477 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 15 Oct 2026


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0