178 lines
4.2 KiB
TeX
178 lines
4.2 KiB
TeX
\documentclass[10pt]{letter}
|
|
\usepackage{UPS_letterhead,xcolor,mhchem,mathpazo,ragged2e}
|
|
\newcommand{\alert}[1]{\textcolor{red}{#1}}
|
|
\definecolor{darkgreen}{HTML}{009900}
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{document}
|
|
|
|
\begin{letter}%
|
|
{To the Editors of the Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters}
|
|
|
|
\opening{Dear Editors,}
|
|
|
|
\justifying
|
|
Please find enclosed a revised version of our invited \textit{Perspective} manuscript entitled
|
|
\begin{quote}
|
|
\textit{``The Bethe-Salpeter Equation Formalism: From Physics to Chemistry''}.
|
|
\end{quote}
|
|
We would to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments.
|
|
Our detailed responses to their comments can be found below.
|
|
For convenience, all modifications and changes are highlighted in red in the revised version of the manuscript.
|
|
|
|
Note that the abstract has been shorten to less than 150 words, the section headings have been removed, and the references have been checked and use the JPCL formatting.
|
|
|
|
We look forward to hearing from you.
|
|
|
|
\closing{Sincerely, the authors.}
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
|
|
%%% REVIEWER 1 %%%
|
|
\noindent \textbf{\large Authors' answer to Reviewer \#1}
|
|
|
|
\begin{enumerate}
|
|
\item
|
|
\textbf{Reviewer's comment}
|
|
\\
|
|
\textit{The rhs of eq.~(9) does not depend on the coordinate 1. Then, in eq.~(8), there is no coordinate 3 to integrate over. Is there a misprint here?}
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
\textbf{Authors' response}
|
|
\\
|
|
Yes, there's a misprint. This has been fixed.
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
|
|
\item
|
|
\textbf{Reviewer's comment}
|
|
\\
|
|
\textit{Ref.~111 is wrong. The correct reference is: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5051028}
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
\textbf{Authors' response}
|
|
\\
|
|
Sorry about this. The reference has been corrected.
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
|
|
\item
|
|
\textbf{Reviewer's comment}
|
|
\\
|
|
\textit{Page 3, 2nd column, line 7: reduce}
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
\textbf{Authors' response}
|
|
\\
|
|
This has been fixed.
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
|
|
\item
|
|
\textbf{Reviewer's comment}
|
|
\\
|
|
\textit{Page 3, 2nd column, line 42: 4-point}
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
\textbf{Authors' response}
|
|
\\
|
|
This has been fixed.
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
|
|
\item
|
|
\textbf{Reviewer's comment}
|
|
\\
|
|
\textit{Page 6, 2nd column, 6th line from bottom: plague}
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
\textbf{Authors' response}
|
|
\\
|
|
This has been fixed.
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
|
|
\item
|
|
\textbf{Reviewer's comment}
|
|
\\
|
|
\textit{Page 7, 2nd column, 11th line from bottom: double excitations}
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
\textbf{Authors' response}
|
|
\\
|
|
This has been fixed.
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
\end{enumerate}
|
|
|
|
\newpage
|
|
|
|
%%% REVIEWER 2 %%%
|
|
\noindent \textbf{\large Authors' answer to Reviewer \#2}
|
|
|
|
\begin{enumerate}
|
|
|
|
\item
|
|
\textbf{Reviewer's comment}
|
|
\\
|
|
\textit{GW and BSE are based on the key issue of screening. Physicists will
|
|
immediately identify this as the central topic of macroscopic
|
|
electrodynamics (or rather electrostatics, because retardation and
|
|
magnetic fields are left out), and realize that all the common knowledge
|
|
of classical electrostatics apply. For chemists without such background
|
|
these links might not be so obvious, and it might be helpful to at least
|
|
mention this somewhere, maybe in connection with Eq.~(8).}
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
\textbf{Authors' response}
|
|
\\
|
|
We thank the review for this helpful comment.
|
|
Accordingly, we have added a new paragraph below Eq.~(8) to mention this.
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
|
|
\item
|
|
\textbf{Reviewer's comment}
|
|
\\
|
|
\textit{As the authors point out, starting from KS energies (and thus from a
|
|
too small band gap) usually leads to GW energies that still underestimate
|
|
the band gap, and some self-consistency (maybe in the energies) or a
|
|
hybrid-functional starting point are required to cure this problem.
|
|
To my understanding the underlying reason is that a too small initial gap
|
|
produces too strong dielectric screening, and this produces too weak
|
|
quasiparticle corrections. The authors might consider to include this in
|
|
the discussion of Sec. 3.}
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
\textbf{Authors' response}
|
|
\\
|
|
Thank you again for yet another useful comment.
|
|
We have added a small paragraph below Eq.~(26) to highlight this practical fact.
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
|
|
\item
|
|
\textbf{Reviewer's comment}
|
|
\\
|
|
\textit{I believe that there are several index errors in the equations, for
|
|
instance Eq.~(5): $f_s(r')$ inside the integral, Eq.~(8): $v(1,3)$,
|
|
Eq.~(9): $G(1,3)$. The authors should check all equations.}
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
\textbf{Authors' response}
|
|
\\
|
|
Sorry for the mistakes. These equations have been corrected.
|
|
\\
|
|
\\
|
|
|
|
|
|
\end{enumerate}
|
|
|
|
\end{letter}
|
|
\end{document}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|