Space and Time Crystal Engineering in Developing Futuristic Chemical Technology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The perspective review written by Pathik Sahoo and Subrata Ghosh is a well written article and discussing one of the relevant topics namely designing photocatalyst by using crystal engineering and time crystal engineering approach. It will give wide attention of readers.
However the authors should take care of typographical errors. Some of the errors are shown below.
Page 4, line 137, "theatrically"
Page 4, line 160, "single even"
Author Response
Our Response to Reviewer 1.
We are very thankful to the reviewer for his encouraging view of our work. We have addressed the typos. Importantly, we worked on the grammatical mistakes very carefully.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled “Crystal Engineering in Designing MOF based Photocatalyst followed by Time Crystal Engineering in selecting a Competitive Product” submitted by Pathik Sahooa and Subrata Ghosh for consideration for publication in the MDPI journal ChemEngineering presents potentially the subject of crystal engineering in designing MOF based catalyst. The subject of the presented manuscript would be interesting but only in the case of the comprehensive discussion of the subject. I cannot see any new information from this work, it is more like a popular science paper. I cannot recommend the publication of the manuscript in the journal ChemEngineering.
- The abstract should be as abstract, now it seems to be as an introduction
- The introduction part contains only 4 references…
- There is no proper conclusion from this work
- The scientific novelty of the presented research should be highlighted
- What results presented in this analysis cannot be found in the available literature? Why are they important?
- What are the reasons that this article will be of interest and importance to other researchers?
- A comparison of the results and the subject with the data available in the literature should be presented
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript entitled “Crystal Engineering in Designing MOF based Photocatalyst followed by Time Crystal Engineering in selecting a Competitive Product” was submitted by Pathik Sahooa and Subrata Ghosh for consideration for publication in the MDPI journal ChemEngineering presents potentially the subject of crystal engineering in designing MOF based catalysts. The subject of the presented manuscript would be interesting but only in the case of the comprehensive discussion of the subject. I cannot see any new information from this work, it is more like a popular science paper. I cannot recommend the publication of the manuscript in the journal ChemEngineering.
Our Response.
We thank the reviewer for critically criticizing the manuscript and we worked seriously on improving the manuscript based on his suggestions. We think, time crystal engineering is a brand new concept, on which we wrote a book chapter (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-7253-1_4) and now we are combining this concept with our crystal engineering principle (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-17638-9_6) and implementing them in developing chemical technology.
- The abstract should be as abstract, now it seems to be as an introduction
Our Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for his constructive criticism. We have modified the abstract now.
- The introduction part contains only 4 references…
Our Response: It was a short introduction. We worked on the introduction and now the references are 11. We thank the reviewer for his advice.
- There is no proper conclusion from this work
Our Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out the problem at the conclusion part. We worked on it and modified it according to the suggestion.
- The scientific novelty of the presented research should be highlighted
Our Response: We have now highlighted the novelty clearly at the abstract, conclusion and main text parts.
- What results presented in this analysis cannot be found in the available literature? Why are they important?
Our Response: This perspective is written for creating a futuristic new research field. We proposed crystal engineering for designing multipurpose catalysts, which can work in the same chemical solution. Moreover, different reaction centres in MOF can carry out different catalytic cycles, which should be nested. Such a report is not still available in the literature, though some multipurpose catalysts are reported. These reported catalysts can not carry out different reaction cycles in the same chemical solutions. So, for developing a chemical technology, we proposed a path here. However, two primary works on crystal engineering and time crystal engineering are published by Sahoo et al previously and cited in this manuscript. We think this perspective will bring a new view on developing chemical technology.
- What are the reasons that this article will be of interest and importance to other researchers?
Our Response: We think, a completely new view is here to develop a futuristic chemical technology. Once people working on the catalyst start exploring the products, intermediates of the catalytic cycles for carrying out some other catalytic reactions, then we can develop the fractal reaction cycles. By selectively activating certain fractal paths we can selectively get a single product from the common chemical environment. This will help to develop the smart catalyst for the future.
- A comparison of the results and the subject with the data available in the literature should be presented
Our Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for his critical reviewing the manuscript. Unfortunately, there is no report to date where competitive reaction cycles can be controlled externally. So, we can not take any data for comparison. We reported here several multipurpose catalysts, but they never produce the competitive product, which can be controlled externally.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
I found this prespective very interesting for the journal chemengineering. I agree with you the future of chemistry is in developing new multifuncitonal catalysts. But authors should be complete the manuscript with more information prior to be accepted.
for example:
section 2.3, I think there is a miss of information, the paragraph is an standard paragragraph that it appears in a template
section 2.4 sounds very poor. I mean, there ara hundreds of paper talking about MOF doped with differente metal nanoparticles for multiple purposes but you have only added one example for Ag. You should complete this part with more examples.
section 6 also sounds very poor, similar to section 2.4 you should adds some examples that currently appears in literature. It could be also interesting if the authors comment diferent techniques of catalyst hybridation.
Author Response
Dear Authors
I found this perspective very interesting for the journal ChemEngineering. I agree with you the future of chemistry is in developing new multifunctional catalysts. But authors should be complete the manuscript with more information prior to being accepted.
Our Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for his encouraging comments and constructive suggestions.
for example:
section 2.3, I think there is a miss of information, the paragraph is a standard paragraph that appears in a template
Our Response: We are extremely sorry for this big mistake. We forgot to include this part in the template. We sincerely thank the reviewer for bringing it to our notice.
section 2.4 sounds very poor. I mean, there are hundreds of papers talking about MOF doped with different metal nanoparticles for multiple purposes but you have only added one example for Ag. You should complete this part with more examples.
Our Response: We thank the reviewer for his criticism. We have modified this part according to his suggestions.
section 6 also sounds very poor, similar to section 2.4 you should add some examples that currently appears in the literature. It could be also interesting if the authors comment on different techniques of catalyst hybridization.
Our Response: This part was also very short and we have modified this part as well. We are very thankful to the reviewer for his kind advice.
Reviewer 4 Report
The current work deals with the development of multifunctional photocatalysts. There are several deficiencies in the paper. Please pay attention on the following comments:
- Title: Must be shorter. It is so descriptive.
- Abstract: Should be revised. Add elements demonstrating novelty and originality of your manuscript.
- Introduction: This section should be enlarged by adding more details on what the research community is doing in the regard of the topic treated. An introduction with only 2 paragraphs is too small for a research article. The literature review must be extended further and enriched with more references.
- Following Sections. State better what is the contribution of the authors to this topic. It is suggested to enlarge the discussion section.
- Scheme 4: The label of this scheme is extremely large. Keep it short and explain it in your manuscript not in the label.
- Conclusions: Do not repeat first person plural tense. Your subject must be the outcome of your research.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The current work deals with the development of multifunctional photocatalysts. There are several deficiencies in the paper. Please pay attention to the following comments:
Our Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for his constructive criticism. We worked on grammar. We worked on the introduction for presenting the background works and explained designing the perspective. Now we demonstrated the methods also very clearly.
- Title: Must be shorter. It is so descriptive.
Our Response: We are thankful for this comment and we have modified it now.
- Abstract: Should be revised. Add elements demonstrating the novelty and originality of your manuscript.
Our Response: We sincerely thank you for pointing out this mistake. We rewrite this part according to his suggestion.
- Introduction: This section should be enlarged by adding more details on what the research community is doing in regard to the topic treated. An introduction with only 2 paragraphs is too small for a research article. The literature review must be extended further and enriched with more references.
Our Response: Yes, it was too short and now we modified it further. We thank the reviewer for his suggestion and we modified it accordingly.
- Following Sections. State better what is the contribution of the authors to this topic. It is suggested to enlarge the discussion section.
Our Response: We have discussed our previous works in the manuscript briefly and tried to show how the technology can be built by extrapolating our previous works. We thank the reviewer for his nice suggestions.
- Scheme 4: The label of this scheme is extremely large. Keep it short and explain it in your manuscript, not in the label.
Our Response: We reduced the size and solved the problem accordingly. We thank the reviewer for his suggestion.
- Conclusions: Do not repeat first person plural tense. Your subject must be the outcome of your research.
Our Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for his advice. We have modified the conclusion. We previously published our work on crystal engineering (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-17638-9_6 ) and time crystal engineering (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-15-7253-1_4) and now we are trying to build the futuristic technology by combining these two concepts.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript entitled “Space and Time Crystal Engineering in Developing Futuristic Chemical Technology” resubmitted by Pathik Sahooa and Subrata Ghosh for reconsideration for publication in the MDPI journal ChemEngineering presents definitely higher level than the first submission. The Authors have performed all the required corrections, added additional explanations and explained the ambiguities which appeared during the first review process. Therefore, I consider the revised manuscript as a perspective paper is suitable for publication in the MDPI journal ChemEngineering. My congratulations to the Authors. I wish You all the best and the next good papers.
Author Response
We are extremely thankful for your great suggestions, advice, and concerns. The first version was really in a primitive shape and your review helped us and enlightened us. We tender our gratitude for your suggestions. We thank you for your well-wishes and encouragement.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for taking into account my suggestions
Author Response
It is a great pleasure for us for experiencing such thoughtful suggestions, advice and concerns. We are extremely thankful for your great support.
Reviewer 4 Report
In line 80, seperate section 2.
Author Response
We are extremely thankful for your thoughtful suggestions, advice and concerns. Your detailed concerns aided us in revising some of our manuscript's weaker sections in a precise way. It also assisted us in explaining the dimension of our previous works in relation to current storylines. We also have modified this present mistake and finally, we tender our utmost gratitude for your great support.
