Search

My comments concern the significant errors in the crystallographic part of the commented paper. The diffraction patterns are erroneously analysed and the final chemical composition is different than those supposed in the paper. There are also some manipulations with data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

My comments concern some errors in the crystallographic part of the commented paper. The diffraction patterns are erroneously analysed and the final data on the structure (symmetry and unit cell parameters) are different than those supposed in the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

My comments concern the significant errors in the crystallographic part of the commented paper. The diffraction patterns are erroneously analysed. It is supposed that the correct crystal structure is an Aurivillius phase Bi 5 Ti 3 FeO 15 with m = 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The title paper reporting on Ba 2 BiVO 6 is commented. • Reported diffraction data are incompatible with the proposed Ba 2 BiVO 6 formula. • Ba 2 BiVO 6 is NOT a new perovskite but a dubious material. • The main part of the studied sample is Ba 3 (VO 4) 2. • The structural data are copied from another paper (plagiarism). My comments concern the errors in the crystallographic part of the title paper. The diffraction patterns are erroneously analysed and authors claim to have prepared a single phase new double perovskite Ba 2 BiVO 6. A critical review of the experimental data reveals that the diffraction patterns are questionable and do not support the proposed formula. It is clear that the studied sample contains Ba 3 (VO 4) 2 crystal as a major part constituent. Thus, the subsequent data have no scientific value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

My comments concern the significant errors in the crystallographic part of the commented paper. The diffraction patterns are erroneously analysed. The studied sample contain two phases what can influence on the final results of experiments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

My comments concern the errors in the crystallographic part of the commented paper. The diffraction patterns are erroneously analysed. The crystal structure was not presented in the commented paper. • Correction of erroneous analysis of diffraction patterns. • Comparison of unit cells relation to the content of Ca dopant. • The crystal structure was not given in the commented paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author of this Comment is concerned with severe errors in the crystallographic part of the commented paper. The actual composition of the crystals studied is not known, but the diffraction patterns and Rietveld analysis suggest the chemical formula of Ba 3 (VO 4) 2 :Ca. Moreover, the symmetry should be trigonal. • Several errors in the crystallographic part of the commented paper were found. • New chemical formula and crystal symmetry is proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]