| 查看: 380 | 回复: 0 | ||
| 【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题，作者robertleaf将赠送您 10 个金币 | ||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | ||
robertleaf新虫 (初入文坛)
|
[求助]
求助各位大神帮忙看看审稿意见
|
|
|
The procedure of using different DFT functionals for computing the geometry and the vertical excitations is not justified, despite it has been used in the past. In fact, it could get to improper errors deriving from the inconsistency between the calculations. The sentence "The consequence of computational simulation of the vertical transition energy shows that the computational consequence of the mPW1PW91 method is in well consistent with experimental value." is not justified. For the reasons reported in point 1. I do not believe this is a valid meter to validate the computational approach. Consistency between the evaluation of the geometries and the electronic properties is missing. HOMO and LUMO energy level are not enough to justify the onto-electronic or photophysical mechanisms. Furthermore, most of the time, the LUMO energy is not correct as computed by DFT. The authors should in fact calculate the electron affinity and the ionization potential values and then correct them with medium effects. Reporting the computed absorption spectra as curves instead of vertical lines, it is not justify. Which curve has been used (Gaussian or Lorentzian)? What are the curve parameters? In my opinion, the authors should only report vertical bars. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
各位大佬，应该如何分析得到的衍射点的图片呢？
已经有5人回复
-
汽车漆面乳化硬腊配方分享
已经有0人回复
-
物理化学论文润色/翻译怎么收费?
已经有205人回复
-
祈福国自然基金通过！
已经有12人回复
-
如果TEM不染色的话能看到表面活性剂或者有机物嘛
已经有6人回复
-
云母片的计算构型可以从哪里获取？
已经有0人回复
-
尺寸在4微米左右，厚度在0.3微米的片状结构能不能称为二维材料呢？
已经有0人回复
-
Biomaterials期刊返稿时间求助
已经有11人回复
-
复旦大学胶体材料博士后招聘
已经有47人回复
-
深圳湾实验室杨奕课题组招聘博士后、助理研究员及软件工程师
已经有16人回复
48