Read on Twitter
Paper on coalescence rejected by JACS.
Gem from the reviews: "Such studies greatly rely on methods applied, but unfortunately, the authors are still using those established about 20-30 years ago by Alivisatos group, Bawendi group, and Peng group"
Gem from the reviews: "Such studies greatly rely on methods applied, but unfortunately, the authors are still using those established about 20-30 years ago by Alivisatos group, Bawendi group, and Peng group"
So, colleagues, UV-Vis spectroscopy is a no go.
You HAVE to use TEM (because that is MUCH newer...
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="đ" title="Gesicht mit FreudentrĂ€nen" aria-label="Emoji: Gesicht mit FreudentrĂ€nen">) even though we PROVE that it cannot answer the questions (actually providing false negatives!) that instead UV-VIS does.
You HAVE to use TEM (because that is MUCH newer...
If this is the intellectual level in this community, I am very disappointed. If this is how the "cream of the crop" of the nanocrystal community understand studies on growth kinetics it is no wonder that the field hasn& #39;t made very significant advances on the topic in 20 years.
Our manuscript addresses every claim and counterarguments in the most systematic manner possible. You CAN& #39;T reject a paper because you don& #39;t like the claims. You must provide rationale for why our proof is NOT a proof. Otherwise it IS proof, regardless of your feelings about it.
Sadly, reading these reviews feels exactly like reading political arguments on Twitter. Same level of intellectual honesty and discipline.
Is there proof you don& #39;t like? Just ignore it or say it isn& #39;t enough without justifying why it is so. Shameful scholarship, really.
Is there proof you don& #39;t like? Just ignore it or say it isn& #39;t enough without justifying why it is so. Shameful scholarship, really.
Feeling like crap for my student who has crafted one of the most diligent and rigorous scientific pieces of work I have ever seen in this field.
I don& #39;t give a shit if this thread is not "appropriate". The reviews were much less appropriate. Must retaliate? Do so, be my guest.
I don& #39;t give a shit if this thread is not "appropriate". The reviews were much less appropriate. Must retaliate? Do so, be my guest.
PS: I welcome any SCIENTIFIC argumentation that contradicts our work. The work is on arXiv. Go ahead. I will personally send a bottle of Veuve Clicquot to anyone who manages to credibly dismantle the work.
