ATOM INDONESIA JOURNAL
2nd Editor’s Report
Article No. : 769
Title of Paper : The effect of external magnetis field
Comment on Descriptions 1. Title
[ X] Appropriate [ ] Should be changed
2. Abstract
Yes[ x] No[ ] Is the length reasonable?
Yes[ x] No[ ] Is it an appropriate summary of the content?
3. Main Text
Yes[ x] No[ ] Is there anything new in this work?
Yes[ x] No[ ] Is the relation to previous studies adequately stated?
Yes[ x] No[ ] Are the assumption(s) and/or method(s) described comprehensively?
Yes[ ]x No[ ] Are the new results adequately emphasized?
Line # Referee’s Comments
146- 152
The authors fail to give any error on the value of δ and this is important here. The error on occupation numbers is usually of order the value of the crystallographic R factor. At best this is 1% giving an occupation number of 3.007±0.03, with δ equal to 7±30 parts per thousand and it could be as high as 7±100 for a “good” powder pattern. Thus the data does not even require a positive of value of δ within error, and the only conclusion that can be reached is that the oxygen content is stoichiometric within experimental error.
238- 249 and 415- 416
Even a cursory examination of figure 3 suggests that the data does not admit a fit of 5 independent parameters. Further
1. Hyperfine effects are negligible at 100K and above.
2. The resistivity data show that the material is not a metal. Hence there is no Fermi surface and no linear term in the specific heat.
3. The material is paramagnetic so there can be no spin wave term in the specific heat.
You should just fit to the phonon terms.
In table 3 the units given for the fitted parameters are sometimes incompatible with their definitions in equation 3. Moreover the fitted values of α are 12 orders of magnitude less than the observed specific heat; so how can you claim to have determined a fitted value?
The interpretation of the specific heat data needs a rethink.
Final comments and recommendations:
Generally this manuscript is acceptable but the interpretation of the specific heat data needs to
be reworked.
This paper is recommended to be [ ] Accepted without further revision [ x] Accepted with minor revision [ ] Major Revision is required [ ] Rejected
