【关键词】数据质量
【正文】
Since the structural characterization is the major focus of the work, the major issue is the crystal quality. Compound x has a R1=8% and compounds y and z are over 10% for R1. These are not due to adsorption correction issues as stated in the checkCIF, but likely twinning and/or disorder in these relatively flexible structures. They even state in the checkCIF that the errors likely arise from poor data quality. This is a major issue if three of the six compounds have R values that are not typically acceptable for publication (R1>5% and high Rint values) and this is paper that is focusing so heavily on structural features. If the data quality was improved, then I feel this manuscript would be better suited for a journal with a focus on crystal structures and design of these materials. However, I want to emphasize that the data quality needs to be improved.
审稿人指出，由于结构表征是这项工作的主要焦点，因此主要问题是晶体质量。化合物x的R1＝8%，化合物y和z的R1超过10%。这不是由于checkCIF中所述的吸收校正问题引起的，而是这些相对柔性结构中可能的孪晶和/或无序。甚至在checkCIF中声明，错误可能是由较差的数据质量引起的。六种化合物中有三种的R值通常不可接受（R1>5%和高Rint值），并且这篇论文非常关注结构特征，那么这就是一个主要问题。如果数据质量有所提高，那么我觉得这份手稿将更适合于本期刊。然而，我想强调的是，数据质量需要提高。
审稿人已经说的很清楚，按照他的要求修改就行。先重新收收据，使Rint降低，然后再精修无序即可。一般来说，晶体学专业期刊，对晶体质量要求高，投稿时需要格外注意这点。
