对Marek Szafrański和Andrzej Katrusiak的《关于硝酸胍的巨大形变与铁电性》一文的回应
Response to "On the giant deformation and ferroelectricity of guanidinium nitrate" by Marek Szafrański and Andrzej Katrusiak
AI总结：
本文是对MS和AK关于硝酸胍铁电性评论的回应，指出对方对原文献科学内容的批评偏向自身结果且毫无根据，并对此提供了详细反驳。
摘要：
遵循对其他作者研究自己早前研究过的材料发表评论的既定惯例（注意：已发表六篇评论[1-6]），Marek Szafrański（MS）和Andrzej Katrusiak（AK）在预印本服务器arXiv上提交了一篇题为《关于硝酸胍的巨大形变与铁电性》[7]的手稿，对我们发表在《Nature Communications》（2022, 13, 2823）上的文章《室温附近铁电动态有机晶体的异常高功密度》[8]进行了评论。无论是在提交的评论中，还是在发布前期刊要求的与我们进行的直接沟通中，MS和AK都对我们文章中文献引用的选择表示不满，他们认为我们对其在该材料上的先前工作引用不够充分。在他们的评论中，他们对我们文章的其他意见总结为：“GN [硝酸胍] 晶体的结构测定、其相变及相关的巨大形变，以及其详细的结构机制、分子动力学和介电特性此前已有报道，而GN [硝酸胍] 晶体的半导体特性、铁电性和抗疲劳性无法得到证实。”[7]撇开MS和AK对我们引用文献选择的情绪不谈，我们发现他们对我们文章科学内容的评论强烈偏向于他们自己的结果且毫无根据。下面，我们对他们的评论提供详细的回应。
英文摘要：
Following a well-established practice of publishing commentaries to articles of other authors who work on materials that were earlier studied by them (n.b. six published comments[1-6]), Marek Szafrański(MS) and Andrzej Katrusiak (AK) have filed on the preprint server arXiv a manuscript entitled "On the giant deformation and ferroelectricity of guanidinium nitrate"[7] with comments on our article "Exceptionally high work density of a ferroelectric dynamic organic crystal around room temperature" published in Nature Communications (2022, 13, 2823).[8] Both in the submitted comment as well as in the required (by the journal) direct communication with us preceding its posting, MS and AK have expressed dissatisfaction with the choice of literature references in our article, for which they felt that their previous work on this material has not been cited to a sufficient extent. In their comment, they summarize their other remarks on our article as "the structural determinations of GN [guanidinium nitrate] crystals, their phase transitions and associated giant deformation, as well as its detailed structural mechanism, the molecular dynamics and dielectric properties were reported before, while the semiconductivity, ferroelectricity, and fatigue resistance of the GN [guanidinium nitrate] crystals cannot be confirmed."[7] Apart from the sentiments of MS and AK on our choice of cited literature, we find their comments on the scientific content of our article to be strongly biased towards their own results and unfounded. Below, we provide a detailed response to their comments.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
