Responding to CheckCIF “Experts”
Year: 2025
Type: conference-abstract
Abstract: In response to a manuscript submission, “Referee 1” provided the following evaluation: “I recommend “Major Revision” or "Reject and Resubmit", considering the quality of the revised manuscript. I have serious concerns as listed below. Additional processing and analysis should be conducted to ensure that at least alerts A and B do not occur in CheckCIF. For samples with high R- values (Cu2BADI_DMF), detailed discussions about the structure should be avoided. Samples with inconsistent elemental analysis results should be reanalyzed.” The structures of concern will be presented,1 along with discussion of how to respond to such reviews.
Source: Structural Dynamics
DOI: 10.1063/4.0000889
Authors: Carla Slebodnick, Abigail Edwards, Landon J. Elkins, Tegan A. Makal
Institutions: Virginia Tech, University of Virginia's College at Wise
Language: English
Subfield: Inorganic Chemistry
Field: Chemistry
Domain: Physical Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $2,200
OpenAlex ID: W7101419128