loos/srDFT_G2
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Done with response letter

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Pierre-Francois Loos 2019-05-08 20:43:23 +02:00
parent 4b9eab1978
commit 5daccf3101
1 changed files with 16 additions and 18 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

34
Response_Letter/ResponseLetter.tex
View File

@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
\begin{document} \begin{document}
\begin{letter}% \begin{letter}%
{To the Editors of Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters} {To the Editors of the Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters}
\justifying \justifying
\opening{Dear Editors,} \opening{Dear Editors,}
@ -45,25 +45,22 @@ We look forward to hearing from you.
The gist of such results should (IMO) be summarised here.} The gist of such results should (IMO) be summarised here.}
\\ \\
\alert{The main results of the previous paper (Ref.~[41]) has already been summarized in the present manuscript. \alert{The main results of the previous paper (Ref.~[41]) has already been summarized in the present manuscript.
We strongly believe that adding more technical details would not improve the readability of the present paper. We strongly believe that adding more technical details would not improve the readability of the present paper, especially for the wide audience of a journal like JPCL.
We point out the key equations of Ref.~[41] and we refer the reader to this reference for further details. In the present manuscript, we point out clearly the key equations of Ref.~[41] and we refer the reader to this reference for further details.
Note that this is the only point where we disagree with the reviewer. Note that this is the only point where we disagree with the reviewer.}
}
\item \item
\textit{This readability issue is not made easier by the authors' commendable focus on generality, which leaves the reader carrying a lot of variables and ideas in their head. \textit{This readability issue is not made easier by the authors' commendable focus on generality, which leaves the reader carrying a lot of variables and ideas in their head.
Fine for a long paper, not so much for a Letter.} Fine for a long paper, not so much for a Letter.
\\ My first suggestion to the authors would be to change from describing things in terms of a generic method "Y" to using a specific case [e.g. CCSD(T)] and then generalizing only at the end, e.g., "Of course, the above holds true for any method that provides a good approximation to the energy, not just CCSD(T).".
\alert{Thank you for pointing that out.
We have made the manuscript more explicit.}
\item
\textit{My first suggestion to the authors would be to change from describing things in terms of a generic method "Y" to using a specific case [e.g. CCSD(T)] and then generalizing only at the end, e.g., "Of course, the above holds true for any method that provides a good approximation to the energy, not just CCSD(T).".
Other changes along these lines would probably also be useful. Other changes along these lines would probably also be useful.
This would help the reader cement the key concept (basis correction) without worrying about quite so many variables.} This would help the reader cement the key concept (basis correction) without worrying about quite so many variables.}
\\ \\
\alert{As proposed by the reviewer, we have explicitly specified the methods X and Y that we have employed throughout the manuscript. \alert{Thank you for pointing that out.
We believe that it has significantly improve the readability of the present manuscript.} We have made the manuscript more explicit.
In particular, as proposed by the reviewer, we have explicitly specified the methods "Y" and "Z" that we have employed throughout the manuscript.
We believe that it has significantly improved the readability of the present manuscript.
We thank the reviewer for this advice.}
\item \item
\textit{On a related note, I do not see the benefit of reporting the LDA correction in the main text, although for sure it belongs in the SI. \textit{On a related note, I do not see the benefit of reporting the LDA correction in the main text, although for sure it belongs in the SI.
@ -71,7 +68,8 @@ We look forward to hearing from you.
This would have the added advantage of reducing discussion on outcomes. This would have the added advantage of reducing discussion on outcomes.
I kind of understand why the authors report LDA, but think it is a distraction since they have PBE.} I kind of understand why the authors report LDA, but think it is a distraction since they have PBE.}
\\ \\
\alert{We have moved the description, discussion and results associated with the LDA functional to the SI. \alert{It is true that the LDA and PBE corrections have similar computational cost.
Therefore, as proposed by the reviewer, we have moved the description, discussion and results associated with the LDA functional to the SI.
The manuscript is now more compact and space has been freed to include the new figure requested by the reviewer (see below).} The manuscript is now more compact and space has been freed to include the new figure requested by the reviewer (see below).}
\item \item
@ -81,8 +79,8 @@ We look forward to hearing from you.
Removing the discussion on LDA would probably free enough space to show this, especially if Figure 2 was condensed into a single figure (which should be feasible sans LDA).} Removing the discussion on LDA would probably free enough space to show this, especially if Figure 2 was condensed into a single figure (which should be feasible sans LDA).}
\\ \\
\alert{This is an excellent suggestion. \alert{This is an excellent suggestion.
We have reported a figure showing $\mu(\bm{r})$ in \ce{} for \ce{N2} various basis sets. We have reported a figure showing $\mu(\bm{r})$ for \ce{N2} in various basis sets.
The corresponding discussion has also been included.} A short discussion has also been included.}
\item \item
\textit{One final (minor) key point is that the proposed use of density fitting or related time-saving steps seems rather ambitious, given that it necessarily introduces a further basis set dependence. \textit{One final (minor) key point is that the proposed use of density fitting or related time-saving steps seems rather ambitious, given that it necessarily introduces a further basis set dependence.
@ -110,7 +108,7 @@ We look forward to hearing from you.
As a small notice, I suggest the the following for an update of reviews on F12, Grueneis et al., J. Chem. Phys., 146, 080901 (2017), Ma and Werner, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci., 8:e1371 (2018). As a small notice, I suggest the the following for an update of reviews on F12, Grueneis et al., J. Chem. Phys., 146, 080901 (2017), Ma and Werner, WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci., 8:e1371 (2018).
To summarize, I think this is an excellent paper that should be published in JPCL basically in the present form.} To summarize, I think this is an excellent paper that should be published in JPCL basically in the present form.}
\alert{We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her kinds comments. \alert{We would like to thank the reviewer for his/her kind comments.
We have added the two references suggested by the reviewer in due place.} We have added the two references suggested by the reviewer in due place.}
\end{letter} \end{letter}