Responding to CheckCIF “Experts”
Carla Slebodnick, Abigail Edwards, Landon J. Elkins, Tegan A. Makal
TL;DR
This paper discusses how to address concerns raised by a referee regarding structural analysis and data quality in a scientific manuscript.
Contribution
It provides guidance on responding to specific CheckCIF alerts and improving manuscript revisions.
Findings
The referee recommended major revisions or rejection due to data concerns.
Specific CheckCIF alerts (A and B) require additional processing and analysis.
Inconsistent elemental analysis results need to be reanalyzed.
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.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsX-ray Spectroscopy and Fluorescence Analysis · Electron and X-Ray Spectroscopy Techniques · Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications