Lattice Matching (LM)—Prevention of Inadvertent Duplicate Publications of Crystal Structures
Lattice-matching techniques have proved to be extremely effective for the identification of unknown crystalline materials. A commonly employed lattice-matching strategy is based on matching the reduced cell of an unknown against a database of known materials represented by their respective standard reduced cells. The success of the method relies on the fact that the lattice or the lattice plus chemical information (e.g., element types) is highly characteristic of a material—like a fingerprint. Because of its intrinsic power, the procedure has many and diverse applications—in materials characterization, in nano-technology, in epitaxial growth, in materials design, etc. An especially fruitful role for the method is in the journal publication process as the quality of the scientific literature can be enhanced. The focus herein is on the major role that lattice matching can play in the prevention of inadvertent duplicate publications of the same structure and in the determination of key cross-references.
Synthesis and Crystal Structure of C5H12NPO4H2
Abstract Synthesis and crystal structure are described for a new non- cento-symmetric organic-cation monophosphate, C5H10NH2·H2PO4. This compound is triclinic P1 with the following unit-cell parameters: a=6.2397(6), b=8.4191(7), c=8.8523(2) A, α=112.485(4), β=89.992(4), γ=90.104(7)°, V=429.37(5) A3, Z=2, and Dx=0.709 g cm−3. Crystal structure was solved with a final R value of 0.03 for 2347 independent reflections. The H2PO4 groups form, via strong hydrogen bonds, corrugated infinite chains (H2PO4)n−n spreading along the a direction. Between these chains coexist two crystallographically independent organic groups, which connect the chains with hydrogen bonds.
Student
Commentary by Julie Bianchini In 1964, almost 50 years ago, Rutherford argued that teachers should become well grounded in the history and philosophy of science so as to effectively teach science as inquiry in their classrooms. He defined scientific inquiry as part of the content of science itself. “To separate conceptually scientific content from scientific inquiry,” he underscored, “is to make it highly probable that the student will properly understand neither” (p. 84). Rutherford also discussed two ways teachers should engage their students in inquiry learning: (1) inquiry as content, where the process of discovery and investigation is integrated into the examination of science facts, laws, principles, and theories; and (2) inquiry as technique, where students conduct first-hand investigations of select topics to understand the nature of scientific inquiry as it actually happens. Science educators, at least those in the US, should re/read Rutherford’s (1964) brief article for two reasons. One, it serves as a reminder that our efforts to make inquiry processes/science and engineering practices central to the teaching and learning of K-12 science extend at least as far back as the NSF-funded curriculum development projects of the post-World War II era. (Rutherford was a key contributor to Harvard Project Physics.) Now as then, science educators stand “unalterably opposed to the rote memorization of the mere facts and minutiae of science . . . and foursquare . . . for the teaching of . . . the inquiry method [now called practices]” (p. 80). As a second reason, even though the recent Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012) gives less time and attention to the nature and history of science, understanding the history and philosophy of science remains inextricably intertwined with reform-based science teaching. The ongoing debate over how to distinguish the practice of arguing from evidence, grounded in Toulmin’s (1958) work, from the practice of constructing explanations is a case in point (see Berland & McNeill, 2012; Osborne & Patterson, 2011, 2012). “Until science teachers have acquired a rather thorough grounding in the history and philosophy of the sciences they teach, . . . not much progress toward the teaching of science as inquiry can be expected” (Rutherford, 1964, p. 84).