Scalable high yield exfoliation for monolayer nanosheets
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35569-8
A Nature Comms paper is published. Happy New Year!
Granular Materials, Flow, Heat and Mass Transfer, Chemical Reactions, Metallurgical and Chemical Processes Modelling, Life
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Richard-DE/featured
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35569-8
A Nature Comms paper is published. Happy New Year!
Raceway size and pressure drop are investigated by physical experiments employing different non-spherical particles.
Influence of aspect ratio on the raceway evolution mechanisms is discussed by using CFD-DEM.
Theoretical predictive model of raceway size is improved by considering the effect of particle shape.
All my publications received another 200 more citations with an H-index of 18.
One Highly Cited Paper in Energy & Environmental Science (Impact Factor: 38.532)
Y. Xia, Q.F. Hou, H. Jubaer, Y. Li, Y. Kang, S. Yuan, H.Y. Liu, M.W. Woo, L. Zhang, L. Gao, H.T. Wang, X.W. Zhang. Spatially isolating salt crystallisation from water evaporation for continuous solar steam generation and salt harvesting, Energy & Environmental Science, 12 (2019) 1840-1847. (Highly Cited Paper)
Referees play a crucial role in evaluating manuscripts submitted to the Physical Review journals. Physical Review editors work closely with referees to apply the acceptance criteria stringently and to act promptly in accepting or rejecting manuscripts. Your active collaboration as a referee is central to the success of the journals.
The email invitation to review includes links to accept or decline. Before you accept, please ensure that the manuscript content is close enough to your area of expertise to allow you to provide useful input and a prompt review. If that is not the case, please decline; your suggestions for alternate reviewers are welcomed.
All materials associated with the review process are confidential, including the manuscript, Supplemental Material, author-provided material, referee reports, and other correspondence. These materials must remain confidential when you consult with colleagues or invite them to write a joint report. We ask that you include the names and contact information of any colleagues who help in writing the report. When you are reviewing a manuscript, please do not initiate discussions with the author(s); instead, please contact the editors with your inquiry.
It is vitally important for reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest to the editors. Please let them know if you have a direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with an author that could preclude your objective evaluation of the manuscript. It is unethical for you to use the content of a manuscript sent to you for review for your own scientific purposes. The Physical Review journals are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics and follow its guidelines.
The following guidelines are an aid to help when reviewing the manuscript. Read the referral letter carefully; there may be editor comments and questions, and/or reference material and previous correspondence sent with the referral. When writing your report, use clear, simple wording and avoid overly negative or polemical comments.
We suggest dividing your review into three parts: (I) Comments intended for both the author(s) and the editors; (II) Recommendation; (III) Comments to the editors only.
Recommendation:
Your report should include a recommendation to accept, revise and reconsider, or reject the manuscript. Please provide reasons for your recommendation.
Comments intended for the editors only:
When submitting your report, you will be presented with a table of checkboxes where you can summarize your overall view of the manuscript for the editors. Here you can indicate your recommendation on accepting or rejecting the manuscript, and, if appropriate, suggest that the paper be transferred to another Physical Review journal or submitted elsewhere. This section is where you may include confidential remarks for the editor. These comments may include your thoughts on why the paper is right or wrong for the particular journal, reasons behind your recommendation, or other information you feel would be useful.