求助：如何回答审稿人的问题？审稿人是这么问的：Page 7 Line 43-52: The decrease of crystallite size reported by the authors, if any, was attributed to the smaller atom radius of the doping metals. I am very skeptical of this statement. The use of “possibly” does not guarantee ungrounded speculation. The authors should think about whether or not the change of lattice parameters could necessarily result in the change of crystallite size. 我在文中是这么写的： In addition, the X-ray diffraction patterns shows that the crystallite size is diminished due to the metal doping, which possibly results from the smaller atom radius of doping metals (Co:0.125 nm, Mn:0.127 nm, Zn:0.134 nm, Ni:0.124 nm) compared with that of Ti (0.147 nm) (Dean, 1991).我这么回答行不行：We agree with the reviewer's comment. The revision is highlighted on pages # 7.然后文中改为：In addition, the X-ray diffraction patterns shows that the crystallite size is diminished due to the broadening of the XRD peaks (Fig. 2).其实我原先是这么想的：The crystallite size is reduces due to the broadening of the XRD peaks. However, the metal dopant can make the XRD peaks broad (Fig. 2). My hypothesis that the smaller crystal size of KLaTi2O6 is due to the smaller atomic size of the metal dopants compared to Ti may be right if the smaller metal atomic substituted for Ti. But it is only a ungrounded speculation. So we have deleted the hypothesis. The revision is highlighted on page #7.2.gif查看更多3个回答 . 24人已关注
第1天
关注盖德视界
添加小助手
