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/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In relation to our original paper [M. Droth et al., Phys. Rev. B 94, 075404(2016)], the Comment by Li et al. [Phys. Rev. B 98, 167403 (2018)] claims tohave identified a "mistake in constructing the adiabatic process of thepiezoelectricity". More specifically, they write that in our original work "theerroneous usage of the polarization difference formula in Eq. (4) leads to aninvalid analytical expression of piezoelectric constant in Eq. (12) ofReference 1". We explain below why these and other minor claims in the Commentare unwarranted, and why we maintain that our result is correct and physicallysound.

Reply to "Comment on 'Piezoelectricity in planar boron nitride via a geometric phase'"