Peer Review Comments- sun cq
Anonymous referees’ comments 1
Monographs 1
Regular Articles 1
2. peers’ correspondences 40
3. Editor’s choice 46
4. PhD Thesis 47
Anonymous referees’ comments
Monographs
C.Q. Sun and Y. Sun, The Attribute of Water: Single Notion, Multiple Myths. Springer Ser. Chem. Phys. Vol. 113. 2016, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. 494 pp.
Series editor:
I have read the introductory material and sample chapter on the slipperiness of ice. This is a very unusual and interesting book. At first i thought from its entertaining and folksy style that it would not be substantial enough for the springer chem. Phys. Series, but it quickly moves on to a deep discussion and thorough review of the topic. I personally found it very interesting (my first degree was actually in chemistry before i moved on to physics). If the other chapters are equally interesting, then there will likely be a substantial market for this book. It would be great for students who are new to the topic. I wouldn't mind having a copy for myself. On that basis, i can recommend it for the springer chem. Phys. Series.
C.Q. Sun, Relaxation of the Chemical Bond: Skin Chemisorption Size Matter ZTP Mechanics Water Myths. Springer Ser. Chem. Phys. Vol. 108. 2014, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. 807 pp.
I have read the proposal with great interest, excitement and enthusiasm. It is very exciting to have such unprecedentedly comprehensive monograph focused on the relaxation of chemical bonds which is a truly universal phenomenon, yet not comprehensively and critically addressed in any monographs that I am aware of. The author is a world-renowned expert in several relevant fields and wrote several highly-successful and highly-cited reviews, including the review inthe top journal in Chemistry. Therefore, publication of this monograph is recommended without any reservation.
X.J. Liu, M.L. Bo, X. Zhang, L.T. Li, Y.G. Nie, H. TIan, Y. Sun, S. Xu, Y. Wang, W. Zheng, and C.Q. Sun, Coordination-resolved electron spectrometrics. Chem. Rev. 115(14): 6746-6810 (2015).
Dear Dr. Sun:
We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication and sent to the Production Department. This is clearly an outstanding manuscript and we are pleased to have the opportunity to publish it. Publication has been scheduled for an upcoming regular issue of Chemical Reviews.
Sincerely,
Dr. Sharon Hammes-Schiffer
Editor-in-Chief
Chemical Reviews
Email:
Fax:(202) 513-8860
Phone:(814) 935-6913
Comprehensiveness / Good / Good / Good
Clarity / Fair
Impact / Good
Technical quality / Good
English useage / Excellent
A: The manuscript gives a comprehensive review of different experimental skills (STM/S, PES, AES, etc.) to study the coordination bonds and energetic electrons in various materials (metals, alloys, semiconductor, nanostructures, etc.). The zone-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy (ZPS) technique was emphasized and proved to be a useful method in analyzing surface status, bond coordination, point defects, etc. I find that the manuscript is of broad interest to researchers in the field. It shall be considered for publication in Chem. Rev. after some revisions addressing the following points.
B: This review provides a detailed review on many atomic scale structural aspects of clusters and coordination materials. While the authors are certainly very knowledgeable in this research field, the review lacks a coherent theme or a clear focus in terms of the structure-property correlation.
In the very beginning, it appears the review will attempt to discuss the correlation of the structures with catalytic properties. However, after reading the review, the word of catalytic or catalyst is merely a general mention. There is no specific structural-catalytic correlation, which is reflected in many of the discussions. For example, in Page 85, it states: “CuPd is more active for the CO and alkene oxidation, CO, NO, benzene, toluene, and 1,3-butadiene hydrogenation and ethanol decomposition [260]”. However there is no actual specific to substantiate this statement. By looking into the reference of 260, nothing about these catalytic reactions is mentioned. There are many similar statements like this throughout this review.
Proposal:
Referee / A(20/06/14) / B(20/07/14) / C(03/10/14) / C(20/07/14) / C(20/06/14)Timeliness / Excellent / Good
Comprehensiveness / Excellent / Good
Probable clarity
Probable impact / Good / Good / Fair
Author qualification / Excellent
Recommendation / Suitable without change / Possibly suitable with major changes
A: Keep the good work.
B: Regular structures of solids are analysed routinely in terms of coordination numbers, bond lengths, angles and energies. This is standard content of current text books and teaching in undergraduate courses. But this is not what Sun et al. propose to cover in their review. Rather, they want to address the local changes of these properties in the presence of irregularities such as heteroatoms, defects, near the surface and near corners, edges and kinks. This is the case of “ill-coordination” and under-coordination. It is important to understand these effects in nanomaterials where the fraction of undercoordinated atoms becomes large because of the high dispersion, and it is essential in catalysis. The challenge is first an experimental one. The data in the review will be from modern spatially resolved X-ray spectroscopy techniques and from STM. Information was collected for many elements and structures and then analysed systematically. Quantitative, although empirical, relations are derived which often remind of similar relations known for the bulk, but here they relate to the situation around imperfections or in general around “ill-coordinated” atoms.
Since the review aims at understanding and even engineering the nanomaterial world including heterogeneous catalysts it will be extremely useful and of broad interest to today’s chemistry community. It has a tutorial, perhaps even a visionary touch as it introduces important concepts. The table of content reveals a rigid structure of the review. It is worth mentioning that the responsible author has an excellent record of publications on this subject in international journals of high reputation, which documents that the work is generally judged as sound and useful. I therefore recommend that this review should be written, and I am looking forward to see it coming out. Having said this I also note that the texts are often somewhat heavy to read because they are packed with technical terms and acronyms (but the language is always precise). The suggested title may serve as an example: “Coordination-resolved scoping of local bond relaxation and electron binding energy-shift”. Would the following title not perhaps be more accessible and attract readers better: “Dependence of bond lengths and electron binding energy on local coordination in perturbed and nanosized materials”?
C3:The authors try to tackle wide range of rather complicated problems with relatively simple empirical approach. Even if I am not sure that the approach put forward by the authors will become widely accepted and adopted by catalytic and spectroscopic communities I guess it would be useful to write this review.
Taking into account the proposed length of this review the authors should consider also the possibility to publish it as a book.
C2: With regard to the previous papers of the author and his collaborators on the same topic I would suggest to shorten the present manuscript. Taking into account the fact that the author came with empirical BOLS approach for the first time some 7 years ago and considering the significant possibilities of this method declared by the author it would be desirable to mention in the paper also the results and experience obtained with this technique by other authors in the world. The ZPS method consisting of calculation of the difference spectra from the angle resolved spectra has many limitations for real samples which decreases considerably its applicability. For chemisorption and catalysis the configuration of adsorption sites is usually important. Furthermore, as shown e.g. by Gabor Somorjai and his collaborators the surface structure undergoes reconstruction in the atomic scale during chemisorption and during catalytic reaction. It is not clear in this context how BOLS-NEP-TB approach can be used to provide guidelines for design of catalysts for particular processes as declared by the author.
C1: The topic dealt with in this contribution is undoubtedly interesting for people working in the field of surface and material science. If published the problems and limitations of the described methods should also be mentioned and discussed (influence of surface roughness, surface contamination, surface enrichment of bimetallic system by one component, well known change of surface composition of alloys caused by adsorption and catalytic reaction, anisotropy of photoemission caused by photoelectron diffraction, problems with background subtraction in the case of spin-orbit split doublets,...).
Y.L. Huang, X. Zhang, Z.S. Ma, Y.C. Zhou, W.T. Zheng, J. Zhou, and C.Q. Sun, Hydrogen-bond relaxation dynamics: Resolving mysteries of water ice. Coord. Chem. Rev. 285: 109-165 (2015).
A: In this article, authors discuss broad research area on water based on the intermolecular interactions between two water molecules. The article is quite long and its coverage is broad. It was also conducible for me to read such a massive review article, while I found some unconvincing descriptions.
B: This manuscript is a review of the latest works related with the atomic structures of ice, water and chemical-physical properties related including the explanation of some anomalies of water-ice behaviour. It is an exhaustive review with almost 400 references with interesting results and concepts, like the water-skin, Mpemba Paradox and thermodynamics explanations. However, it looks like that has been written too fast, even after the revision, because this manuscript is a revision version, and some improvements should be applied. I think that this manuscript could be published only after a carefully major revision addressing the following comments.
Chem Rev
Dear Prof. Sun:
Of the large number of proposals for review articles that Chemical Reviews receives we are only able to accept some. Based on the lukewarm response of the reviewers, I regret to say that the particular proposal that you submitted is not among them and hope that some future proposal on a different subject will fare better. Thank you for considering our journal for the publication of your work.
Sincerely,
Prof. Josef Michl
Editor-In-Chief
Ref / A / BAuthor’s contribution / Significant / Significant
Timeliness of subject / Excellent / Fair
Comprehensiveness / Excellent / Cannot project
Probable clarity / Good / poor
Probable impact / Excellent / poor
Author qualification / Excellent / Good
Interest in reviewing final manuscript / None
A: Recommendation: Suitable with minor changes.
I would agree that there is scope for such a review, and the outline appears reasonably comprehensive.Other recent reviews may have some relevance but appear to have a different emphasis. E.g.George Malenkov 2009 “Liquid water and ices: understanding the structure and physical properties” J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 21 283101 doi:10.1088/0953-8984/21/28/283101
Prof Sun’s forays into water ice studies are relatively recent but he has transferred expertise and tools from materials science to make a significant contribution already, developing models that are consistent with much experimental data.
B: Not suitable for Chemical Reviews.
I cannot recommend this review proposal for development into a chemical reviewers articles for the following reasons:
1) This proposed review would deal with an area to which the authors have made significant contributions but that it is, in itself, of low impact for the broad chemical physics and, even, the water research community.
2) The topics proposed in this review seem to heavily overalp with the work that these authors have been publishing in the last couple of years (note that the references of "relevant work" listed with this proposal are all 2012 to 2013). That by itself would not an issue, but it is my impression that it constitutes a very narrow focus for a Chemical Reviews article. I do not expect such an article will have a large readership.
3) I read several of the relevant papers listed by the authors on the topics of this proposal to assess the probable clarity of the proposed review. I found the clarity of the papers wanting in four respects:
i) most discussion in the papers is self-referential, to other papers by the principal author without much focus on a larger picture of the problems addressed and little discussion of overarching implications that go beyond the narrow focus of the results presented.
ii) the citation of other authors literature in these papers was somehow whimsical (e.g. some papers were cited for arguments that were not there, or that provide results that do not relate to the context in which they were cited)
iii) there is a lose use of terms (e.g. super solidity) that have a well-defined meaning but are used by the authors in an -again- whimsical manner to characterize behavior that bears no resemblance to its original definition (it should be noted that a full section of the proposed review would be devoted to skin super solidity). When reading these papers I found in many cases that the authors were using terms (concluding?) that did not correspond to the evidences they presented.
iv) the grammar and the clarity of the narrative in the papers is wanting.
A Supersolid Skin Covering both water and Ice, PCCP 16 (42), 22987-22994
A: This paper addresses a very interesting topic, namely the unusual properties of the top layers of ice and the skin surface of water. The authors claim that both surfaces are in fact identical, based on experimental and theoretical results. The paper is very interesting, but unfortunately its present version is too difficult to understand, both because the English is very poor, and because the figures and tables are confusing and the captions are not sufficiently clear. Therefore I am sorry to advice rejection in its present form.
B: I think there may be some significant results here, but the manuscript is so poorly written I cannot tell.
Skin-resolved bond contraction, core electron entrapment, and valence charge polarization of Ag and Cu nanoclusters, PCCP 2014. 16 8940-8948.
A: Authors analyzed bonding parameters and electronic structures of silver and copper clusters. They compare BOLS and NEP frameworks with DFT calculations using LDA functional and available experimental data. They claim that the shell atoms have shorter bonds than the core atoms, due to undercoordination of these atoms. They conclude that this effect stands behind extraordinary catalytic properties of Ag/C u nanoparticles. I would recommend publication of this particular manuscript after considering below-listed points.