Bis(2,6-pyrazolyl)pyridines as a New Scaffold for Coordination Polymers
and Yulia V. Nelyubina 1,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the abstract, I did not find LOH in the formulas of two coordination polymers. The abbreviation should be explained when used on first time
Reduce the keywords number
In introduction section clearly the novelty of your work.
Experimental section is not clear
Avoid the use of literature in the conclusion section. Conclusion most contained your innovative approach, finding and overall advantageous aspects of the study
I believe the manuscript can be improve expert touch
English can be improve
Author Response
Comment 1: In the abstract, I did not find LOH in the formulas of two coordination polymers. The abbreviation should be explained when used on first time.
Authors’ reply: To address this concern, the abbreviation LO- is explained in the Abstract section of the revised version of our ms.
Comment 2: Reduce the keywords number.
Authors’ reply: The number of the keywords was reduced as instructed.
Comment 3: Experimental section is not clear.
Authors’ reply: To clarify the experimental section, a figure S2 that illustrates the reactant diffusion technique was added to the Supplementary materials.
Comment 4: Avoid the use of literature in the conclusion section. Conclusion most contained your innovative approach, finding and overall advantageous aspects of the study.
Authors’ reply: To address this concern, we omitted some of the citations in the Conclusion section; however, we prefer to keep the others to put our results into a more general perspective.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is nicely written and has good amount of work inside to be considered for publication in Molecules after the following major revision.
Scheme 4 should be moved to ESI as there is no support for this mechanism..
R1 of [Fe(LOBF3)(CH3COO) (CH3CN)2]n• nCH3CN is too high 9.44 to be reliable without any A-level alert.
There are A-level alerts in two crystals. The authors are suggested to get reflections from better crystals.
N/A
Author Response
The manuscript is nicely written and has good amount of work inside to be considered for publication in Molecules after the following major revision.
Comment 1: Scheme 4 should be moved to ESI as there is no support for this mechanism.
Authors’ reply: This Scheme was as instructed.
Comment 2: R1 of [Fe(LOBF3)(CH3COO) (CH3CN)2]n• nCH3CN is too high 9.44 to be reliable without any A-level alert.
Authors’ reply: Although R1 for this product does seem a bit high, which results for the modest quality of its single crystals and the disorder of the CH3COO anion and the acetonitrile solvent molecule, it is not too high to produce an A-level alert.
Comment 3: There are A-level alerts in two crystals. The authors are suggested to get reflections from better crystals.
Authors’ reply: Unfortunately, even the best available crystals of these two products were too small to produce higher-quality X-ray diffraction data.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The manuscript still contained typos please check it carefully. The abbreviation
like PCET-assisted process should be defined when used on first time such as Proton-coupled electron transfer (PCET). Although it is defined alter on in the text but first time used in abstract. The suggestion should consider for training not for revision.
Seem ok
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript came back as it is after revision. The author replies the two A-level alerts with an excuse of small crystal. Since this was my only concern, I suggest publication at this stage if this goes well with the technical requirements of the journal.
