Response to Comment on (Novel two-dimensional porous graphitic carbon nitride C6N7 monolayer: A First-principle calculations [Appl. Phys. Lett. 2021, 119, 142102])

TL;DR

This paper addresses and refutes comments on a previous first-principles study of a novel C6N7 monolayer, clarifying misunderstandings and emphasizing the validity of their original findings.

Contribution

The authors respond to critiques by clarifying methodological points and defending the scientific validity of their original computational results on C6N7 monolayer.

Findings

The phonon dispersion confirms stability of C6N7 monolayer.

The mechanical properties are consistent with first-principles calculations.

The critique regarding thickness assumptions is addressed and clarified.

Abstract

Recently, reported a comments on the our paper [Appl. Phys. Lett. 119, 142102 (2021)]. With our response, the APL journal rejected their non scientific comments. There are some ambiguities about their claim: 1-They can check the phonon dispersion of their structure to see ZA out-of-plane mode. 2-They report the uniaxial stress-strain responses in Fig 2., which is unrelated to our paper. For a more helpful understanding of the mechanical properties of the novel C6N7 monolayer, they can publish a paper. 3-They mentioned: Using the DFT method and with assuming a thickness of 3.35 A for the C6N7 monolayer based on graphene thickness. Why did they choose this thickness while we know our C6N7 monolayer is at without buckling? The distance of ZA out-of-plane movement of ions in C6N7 is different from Graphene.