26/10/2018 [BULK] RE: 2nd Revised article #769
https://mail3.batan.go.id/mail/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=0&mailbox=INBOX&passed_id=603&view_unsafe_images= 1/2
From: "Collins, Malcolm" <[email protected]>
Subject: [BULK] RE: 2nd Revised article #769 Date: Thu, October 25, 2018 9:24 pm
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To:
25 October 2018 Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Evvy Kartini
Chief Editor of Atom Indonesia
Center for Informatics and Nuclear Strategic Zone Utilization Puspiptek Area, Serpong, Tangerang, Indonesia
Ref. No. : # 769
Title : The effect of External Magnetic Field on Physics Properties at La0.41Ca0.59Mn1-xCuxO3±δ with x = 0.06 and 0.15 at Temperature Range 100 – 300 K
Generally this is a good article, but I believe that it is wrong in two places and the authors have not addressed my concerns
1. I do not believe that the occupation factor (lines 146-152) has been determined to one part in 3000. The authors’ reply that their program FULLPROOF gives this
value for the error. However this just not believable. To get statistical errors on one part in 3000 on peak intensities one needs 9 million counts over the peak and very careful background subtraction. Also there are many small effects not
considered by FULLPROOF that contribute to the error by more than one part in 3000 (uncertainties in the neutron scattering cross sections, sample purity (one part in 1000), uncertainty in manganese concentration due to a tendency to evaporate, extinction, multiple Bragg scattering). I suspect that FULLPROOF is giving an incorrect level of accuracy because the ratio of the number of Bragg peaks to the number of fitted parameters is not high enough. It is fitting n parameters to m peak intensities and n is not small if Debye-Waller factors are included. If n=m the program would indicate a perfect fit with zero error, but this result would be incorrect. To get a meaningful statistical error m has to be much bigger than n.
Another possible cause is the program does not calculate the error correctly. This calculation is quite tricky. The error function is a skewed, highly-eccentric, ellipse in n-dimensional parameter space and to get the errors you have first to determine the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the error matrix in the n dimensional space and then proceed from there.
1. The resistance measurement show that the material is not a metal, so there is no justification for including a term linear in temperature in the fitted specific
heat.
I have already pointed out these two problems in a previous referral and the authors do not seem to accept them. I am not willing to accept a manuscript that contains errors.
Regards
Malcolm Collins
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
Sent: October 16, 2018 11:51 PM To: Collins, Malcolm
26/10/2018 [BULK] RE: 2nd Revised article #769
https://mail3.batan.go.id/mail/src/printer_friendly_main.php?passed_ent_id=0&mailbox=INBOX&passed_id=603&view_unsafe_images= 2/2 Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 2nd Revised article #769 Ref. No. : #769
Title : The effect of External Magnetic Field on Physics Properties at La0.41Ca0.59Mn1-xCuxO3±δ with x = 0.06 and 0.15 at Temperature Range 100 – 300 K
Dear Prof. Dr. Malcolm F. Collins (Editor),
Please find 2nd author's responses and the 2nd revised article mentioned above. Please let us know whether this article has been revised correctly and can be accepted to be published in Atom Indonesia. The letter of acceptance is also attached.
Thank you for your kind attention and cooperation.
Sincerely Yours,
Prof.Dr.Rer.Nat Evvy Kartini Chief Editor of Atom Indonesia
