User:Bird flock/Computational chemistry/GurkiratSinghNijjar Peer Review

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you?

Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

Good job on this article. I really like the following in your article

Clarity of Explanation: The article presents complex concepts in a clear and understandable manner, making it accessible to students who may not have a deep background in computational chemistry.

Real-World Examples: Good use of real-world examples and practical applications of the split operator technique in fields such as catalysis, drug development, and computational chemistry databases. These examples helped me to grasp the relevance of the technique.

Discussion of Error and Accuracy: The concept of "splitting error" provides a clear example of how it occurs. It also introduces methods to reduce this error, contributing to a better understanding of the technique.

Relevance to undergraduate Students: It highlights the importance of the split operator technique for undergraduate students and the challenges faced by computational chemists. This context is valuable for readers.

Neutral Tone

Good use of citations from reliable sources

• What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be

an improvement?

Given that this article involves a lot of math and computational details, it could be improved by using simpler language. To clarify, when we talk about intricate math or computational concepts, it would be beneficial to explain things in a way that a second-year undergraduate student can grasp. One way to do this is to simplify equations and provide step-by-step explanations. Moreover, a discussion about recent trends in computational chemistry will make this article better.

Incorporate Visual Aids: Create diagrams or flowcharts to visually explain the process of splitting differential equations. For example, you could illustrate how a complex equation is split into simpler components and then recombined. Visual aids would make the process easier to grasp.

• What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Simplifying the complex language and discussing some recent trends in computational chemistry

• Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own

I've learned from the article the importance of using techniques like 'Brogan' to simplify complex language, making the content more accessible. Additionally, it highlighted the value of discussing recent trends in the field to keep readers informed about the latest developments.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Response to Peer Review - Erdabravest2001
''Good job on this article. I really like the following in your article''

Clarity of Explanation: The article presents complex concepts in a clear and understandable manner, making it accessible to students who may not have a deep background in computational chemistry.

''Real-World Examples: Good use of real-world examples and practical applications of the split operator technique in fields such as catalysis, drug development, and computational chemistry databases. These examples helped me to grasp the relevance of the technique.''

''Discussion of Error and Accuracy: The concept of "splitting error" provides a clear example of how it occurs. It also introduces methods to reduce this error, contributing to a better understanding of the technique.''

''Relevance to undergraduate Students: It highlights the importance of the split operator technique for undergraduate students and the challenges faced by computational chemists. This context is valuable for readers.''

Author Response: Thank you for this. This feedback is super helpful because it is giving us a clearer picture on what we are doing correctly.

''Given that this article involves a lot of math and computational details, it could be improved by using simpler language. To clarify, when we talk about intricate math or computational concepts, it would be beneficial to explain things in a way that a second-year undergraduate student can grasp. One way to do this is to simplify equations and provide step-by-step explanations. Moreover, a discussion about recent trends in computational chemistry will make this article better.''

''Incorporate Visual Aids: Create diagrams or flowcharts to visually explain the process of splitting differential equations. For example, you could illustrate how a complex equation is split into simpler components and then recombined. Visual aids would make the process easier to grasp.''

Author Response: Thank you for this. I think the problem with making the math simpler is that we do not want to over simplify things as we do not want to be wrong. Also there exists a ton of wikipedia articles explaining the math. Maybe we could have a link to splitting differential equations and use existing images on those to explain. We have added a discussion about recent trends in computational chemistry.