Re: [sdpd] Publishing a Powder-Diffraction-based paper is hard sometimes

[Jon Wright <wright...@esrf.fr>]

Hi Armel,

It is quite surprising in this day and age that any journal will accept 
a powder structure without the data and refinement being deposited as 
supporting information. Such a deposition might solve your problem with 
that reviewer? It seems you would be an ideal person to figure out how 
to get a deposition procedure working...

Good luck

Jon








Armel Le Bail wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Have you observed how some reviewers exigences look
> fool sometimes concerning manuscripts based on powder
> diffraction data ?
> 
> "In fig. 2, there is a certain region omitted. This must be
> described somewhere in the manuscript."
> Well, you said in the text that a "a few extra-peaks could not
> be explained by larger cell parameters" and that "they may well
> indicate the presence of an unidentified impurity".
> But this was not enough for the referee. He wants a perfect job
> with everything explained...
> 
> Have you an idea of the number of single-crystal based works
> that would be rejected if the referees were systematically
> requiring a powder pattern of the bulk from where was extracted
> the crystal, and explanations for all extra peaks ?-).
> 
> Best,
> 
> Armel
> 




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sdpd/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sdpd/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:sdpd-digest...@yahoogroups.com 
    mailto:sdpd-fullfeatured...@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    sdpd-unsubscribe...@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/