Review Reports
by
- Marwan Dakkouri
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Christian Van Alsenoy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper could be very interesting however it is far too long and is written in the first person which is abnormal for scientific papers. The manuscript is far too verbose and needs to be cut substantially to be publishable.
The quality of the English is generally fine, there are places where it can be improved but please see above regarding the style and length of the manuscript.
Author Response
First, I would like to thank the reviewer for the efforts she/he made to review my manuscript and for making useful suggestions for improving its quality. I know how important and responsible such a contribution is.
- The reviewer wrote “…and is written in the first person which is abnormal for scientific papers.”
My answer: Actually, it is generally accepted (and even preferred) to use the first-person form “I” if the paper is written by a single author (confirming again that the work has been solely done by her/him and she/he is responsible for the content). Nevertheless, I revised the manuscript avoiding the usage of “I”.
- The reviewer suggested shortening the manuscript indicating: “The manuscript is far too verbose and needs to be cut substantially…”
My answer: Following her/his recommendation I meanwhile revised and/or shortened substantially various parts of the manuscript, yet retaining the scientific relevance of the content.
Hereafter are the most relevant revisions and cutbacks which I performed:
- Page 2, line 47.
- P3: L105 and L117: Text has been revised and shortened.
- P3: L129- L135 and L142- L146: Text has been revised and shortened.
- P4: L155-L162: Text has been revised and shortened.
- P4-P5: L201-L207: Text has been eliminated.
- P 7: L273 -L288: Text has been eliminated.
- P 8: L302 - L 312 and L331-L332: Text has been eliminated.
- P.8: L314-316: Text has been revised.
- P 8: L341 - L 344: Text has been eliminated.
- P9: L348-L349, L374 and L376 Text has been revised.
- P10: L402 -L403: Text has been revised.
- P10: L414: Text has been revised although as a single author I would have preferred to leave it as it is.
- P28: L1153: Text has been revised.
- P29: L1224-1225: Text has been revised.
- P35: L1414-1422: Text has been revised.
- P40: L1716-1722: Text has been revised and shortened.
- P42: L1775-1777: Text has been eliminated.
- P45: L-1903- 1904: Text was revised.
Various minor revisions which I also carried out have not been included in this list.
Reviewer 2 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I very much appreciate the positive judgement, the overwhelming and constructive comments of the reviewer. Thank you for your recognition of the scientific value of my work.
From your precise indications of the typos and some other “flaws” (like for instance the weird symbol for Angstrom!) in the manuscript, it was evidently apparent that you read the manuscript with an adequate care and scientific expertise.
Thank you also for the efforts you made for reviewing my manuscript and for offering useful suggestions for improving its quality.
Now my answers to your suggestions:
- You wrote “In some instances the author uses the first person, using the third person would be more appropriate.”
My answer: Actually, it is generally accepted (and even preferred) to use the first-person form “I” if the paper is written by a single author. Nevertheless, I revised the manuscript avoiding the usage of “I”.
- You suggested shortening the sections: 3.1. and 4. in the manuscript.
My answer: I meanwhile revised and/or shortened substantially various parts of the manuscript including section 3 (see below), yet retaining the scientific relevance of the content.
As to section 4, I am sorry to have to stress that in my opinion the reduction of this section would affect to some extent the quality of the manuscript for various reasons and among them:
I know that numerous papers have been published dealing with the pros and cons of the Mulliken and NPA charge distributions (CDs). However, by invoking several examples I tried in my work to show the performance of both CDs specifically regarding the elucidation of charge transfer in SCIs (and their substituted derivatives) and the distribution of charges between atoms participating on bonds involving silicon or germanium spiro centers.
In this section, I had to choose a variety of hypothetical compounds in order to find a plausible elucidation for the remarkably negative natural charges on spiro centers in spirocyclic sila-/germa-imines when the Si/Ge spiro center is surrounded by Si(Ge)=X double bonds (X = C, Si, Ge)) or Si-Si (Ge-Ge) single bonds.
This was one of the reasons for the extension of this section and, therefore, I dislike to skip this part of the manuscript.
Hereafter are the most relevant revisions and cutbacks which I performed:
- Page 2, line 47.
- P3: L105 and L117: Text has been revised and shortened.
- P3: L129- L135 and L142- L146: Text has been revised and shortened.
- P4: L155-L162: Text has been revised and shortened.
- P4-P5: L201-L207: Text has been eliminated.
- P 7: L273 -L288: Text has been eliminated.
- P 8: L302 - L 312 and L331-L332: Text has been eliminated.
- P.8: L314-316: Text has been revised.
- P 8: L341 - L 344: Text has been eliminated.
- P9: L348-L349, L374 and L376 Text has been revised.
- P10: L402 -L403: Text has been revised.
- P10: L414: Text has been revised although as a single author I would have preferred to leave it as it is.
- P28: L1153: Text has been revised.
- P29: L1224-1225: Text has been revised.
- P35: L1414-1422: Text has been revised.
- P40: L1716-1722: Text has been revised and shortend.
- P42: L1775-1777: Text has been eliminated.
- P45: L-1903- 1904: Text was revised.
Various minor revisions which I also carried out have not been included in this list.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your edits.