24小时热门版块排行榜

>论坛更新日志 (3971)
>虫友互识 (861)
>导师招生 (294)
>文献求助 (274)
>硕博家园 (138)
>考博 (115)
>公派出国 (109)
>博后之家 (91)
>论文投稿 (89)
>基金申请 (88)
>找工作 (82)
>休闲灌水 (82)
>考研 (75)
>论文道贺祈福 (71)
>教师之家 (62)
>招聘信息布告栏 (56)

返回列表

当前主题已经存档。

zhmiao119

木虫 (著名写手)

应助: 17 (小学生)
金币: 1203
散金: 1748
红花: 5
帖子: 2177
在线: 779.6小时
虫号: 309505
注册: 2006-12-23
性别: MM
专业: 其他无机非金属材料

[交流] Acta E的这个问题该如何答复？

投了篇Acta E，第二天主编就提了几个问题，看了半天不知怎么改，期待高手指点阿！其中一个问题如下：
Question: You claim that there are two water molecules in the formula unit, but you do not give any evidence for this statement. You have assigned occupation numbers of 0.4 for all water molecules, but again you do not say why you chose 0.4. You do not say how you assigned the water H positions. You imply that their positions were calculated, though there is no unique way of making this calculation without making further assumptions. If indeed the water positions were only 40% occupied, it implies any hydrogen bonds they form must also be disordered and therefore that the positions of the water H atoms will be difficult to determine, particularly in the presence of Mo atoms. You make no mention of these difficulties or how they were resolved. The paper leaves the impression that the water molecule postions and their hydrogen bonds are well determined, whereas in fact they could be quite wrong. It is important to describe the parts of the structure that are difficult to determine so that the reader doew not assume that this part of the structure is necessarily correct. Not all structures can be accurately determined and it is not wrong to point out those parts of the structure that you have been unable to determine. It is wrong, however, to give the impression that all the atoms have been accurately determined when this is not the case.

Answer: ?

谢谢！

回复此楼