Review badges
0 pre-pub reviews
2 post-pub reviews

The generation of intense coherent deep-UV light from nonlinear optical materials is crucial to applications ranging from semiconductor photolithography and laser micromachining to photochemical synthesis. However, few materials with large second harmonic generation (SHG) and a short UV-cutoff edge are effective down to 200 nm. A notable exception is KBe2BO3F2, which is obtained from a solid-state reaction of highly toxic beryllium oxide powders. We designed and synthesized a benign polar material, Ba4B11O20F, that satisfies these requirements and exhibits the largest SHG response in known borates containing neither lone-pair-active anions nor second-order Jahn-Teller-active transition metals. We developed a microscopic model to explain the enhancement, which is unexpected on the basis of conventional anionic group theory arguments. Crystal engineering of atomic displacements along the polar axis, which are difficult to attribute to or identify within unique anionic moieties, and greater cation polarizabilities are critical to the design of next-generation SHG materials.


Wu, Hongping;  Yu, Hongwei;  Yang, Zhihua;  Hou, Xueling;  Su, Xin;  Pan, Shilie;  Poeppelmeier, Kenneth R.;  Rondinelli, James M.

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author
Contributors on Publons
  • 3 authors
  • 2 reviewers
Publons score (from 2 scores)
Web of Science Core Collection Citations
  • Abstract, title and references ● Is the aim clear? Yes ● Is it clear what the study found and how they did it? Yes ● Is the title informative and relevant? Yes ● Are the references: ● Relevant? Yes ● Recent? Yes ● Referenced correctly? Yes ● Are appropriate key studies included? Yes Introduction/ background ● Is it clear what is already known about this topic? Yes ● Is the research question clearly outlined? Yes ● Is the research question justified given what is already known about the topic? Yes Methods ● Is the process of subject selection clear? Yes ● Are the variables defined and measured appropriately? Yes ● Are the study methods valid and reliable? To some Extent ● Is there enough detail in order to replicate the study? Yes Results ● Is the data presented in an appropriate way? Yes ● Tables and figures relevant and clearly presented? Yes ● Appropriate units, rounding, and number of decimals? Yes ● Titles, columns, and rows labelled correctly and clearly? Yes ● Categories grouped appropriately? Yes ● Does the text in the results add to the data or is it repetitive? repetitive ● Are you clear about what is a statistically significant result? Yes ● Are you clear about what is a practically meaningful result? Yes Discussion and Conclusions ● Are the results discussed from multiple angles and placed into context without being over interpreted? Yes ● Do the conclusions answer the aims of the study? To some extent ● Are the conclusions supported by references or results? Yes ● Are the limitations of the study fatal or are they opportunities to inform future research? Needs Future Research.

  • An investigation into the Effect of Moisture Content on Thermal Properties of Adobe Bricks

All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.