English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

A recent comment by Hiberty, Danovich and Shaik to our previous communication on interpreting valence bond (VB) concepts in real space raises concerns about the map between quantum chemical topology (QCT) concepts and those of other conceptual frameworks, such as VB theory. We clarify here why some of these discrepancies appear, particularly as resonance structures (RSs) are regarded. As originally shown in our communication, we do not redefine VB structures, but we compare them with their real space equivalent instead.

physical chemistry chemical physics

Reply to the ‘Comment on “Decoding real space bonding descriptors in valence bond language”’ by S. Shaik, P. Hiberty and D. Danovich, <i>Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.</i>, 2019, 21, DOI: 10.1039/C8CP07225F

Reply to the ‘Comment on “Decoding real space bonding descriptors in valence bond language”’ by S. Shaik, P. Hiberty and D. Danovich, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 2019, 21, DOI: 10.1039/C8CP07225F