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

more on response letter

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Pierre-Francois Loos 2019-05-08 15:10:03 +02:00
parent 32bd3e0c43
commit e942c1c272
1 changed files with 11 additions and 6 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

17
Response_Letter/ResponseLetter.tex
View File

@ -44,8 +44,10 @@ We look forward to hearing from you.
For example, the authors refer several times to work in the Appendix of a previous paper.
The gist of such results should (IMO) be summarised here.}
\\
\alert{I am not super sure this is worth it.
%We have added a summary of the different results derived in the previous paper.
\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 point out 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.
}
\item
@ -60,7 +62,8 @@ We look forward to hearing from you.
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.}
\\
\alert{As proposed by the reviewer, we have explicitly specified the methods X and Y that we have employed.}
\alert{As proposed by the reviewer, we have explicitly specified the methods X and Y that we have employed throughout the manuscript.
We believe that it has significantly improve the readability of the present manuscript.}
\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.
@ -68,7 +71,8 @@ We look forward to hearing from you.
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.}
\\
\alert{We have moved the description and discussion of the LDA functional to the SI.}
\alert{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).}
\item
\textit{What I think would be very useful is to show $\mu(\bm{r})$ for an example, e.g. along the bond in an interesting diatom.
@ -76,8 +80,9 @@ We look forward to hearing from you.
If values for multiple basis sets were reported it might also help in understanding how and where larger basis sets help, which might point to how to improve basis sets in a more systematic fashion.
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 for Manu!
We have reported a figure showing $\mu(\bm{r})$ in \ce{} for various basis sets.}
\alert{This is an excellent suggestion.
We have reported a figure showing $\mu(\bm{r})$ in \ce{} for \ce{N2} various basis sets.
The corresponding discussion has also been included.}
\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.