RCS被拒后,十天前投到ICC上!
早上起来看完金牌榜,看到羽毛球团体胜啦,后来再看看我老板的邮箱,没想到审稿人来信啦,请大家帮我分析一下,好像问题多多呀,可怕!
Dear prof. X X,
Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision. Also, I would suggest to leave the TGA figure in supplementary, and follow the comments of reviewers for revision.
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1: The work presents the structure and some properties of zinc complex with an interesting, new ligand. I think it is worth publishing but I also list the problems that should be fixed first.
1) The quality of the figures -especially fig.2 - is very low. It makes pictures incomprehensible
2) I have not found the table with hydrogen bonds in cif - it SHOULD be included for the full description of the crystal structure
3) What are the authors' final conclusions concerning photoluminescent properties of the obtained compound - is the complex a promising candidate for the photoactive material?
4) For me the text is written clearly enough. There is only one phrase I do not understand i.e. „By administrating a reaction..." and I'd rather write "….utilizing ….which…" instead of "…with utilizing…..whose…"
5) Minor problems with references: 2c was published in (2004); 6e and 7a do not describe MOF but inorganic complexes and should be omitted; 9a - does it really give the description of influence of metal on the structure of MOFs?; 24b begins from p. 2397 not 239
I recommend the paper for publication in Inorganic Chemistry Communications after minor revision
Reviewer #2: The manuscript describes the synthethis, the characterization carried by x-ray diffraction, thermanl analisys and solid state emission spectroscopy of a new polymeric zinc complex.
As a whole the experimental data are roughly presented and scarcely commented. Thus, although the investigated compound is somehow quite interesting, the manuscript have to be severely improved to be considered for publication.
In particular the Authors should paid attention to the following points:
- the sketch of the tfpbbp formula should be added;
- the Zn(II) coordination sphere has to be better and clearly described: the difference between the Zn(1)-O(1) and the Zn(1)-O(2) bond length is very high and as the Zn(1)-O(2) distance (2.4094 A) could also account for a non-bonding interaction, the Zn(II) ion could be better described as in a pseudo-pentacoordinated geometry instead of a distorted bipyramid geometry. A comment should be added.
- Figure 2 is of very poor quality, could the Authors provide a clearest rapresentation of the 3D structure?
- Figure 3 is not essential, it should be omitted;
- The "Pictogram" is absolutely incomprehensible,
- The english has to be improved througout the whole text.
Concluding, the manuscript has to be deeply revised before acceptance.
- 