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 the recent paper by Teys [JETP Letters 105 (8), 477-483 (2017)], an atomicmodel for the Si(331) reconstructed surface (hereby referred to as T-model) wasproposed on the basis of high-resolution scanning tunneling microscopy (STM)images. While detailing the virtues against previous and abandoned models, theauthor avoids any reference to the rather distinct 8P-model advocated few weeksearlier by Zhachuk and Teys [R. Zhachuk, S. Teys, Phys. Rev. B 95, 041412(2017)], casting doubts to his own work. Formulated that way, findings fromRef. [JETP Letters 105 (8), 477-483 (2017)] leave readers of JETP Letters witha partial and confusing view of the problem, and above all, leaves theobservations open to ambiguous interpretation. The 8P-model is also based onSTM measurements, and unlike the T-model, passed through the scrutiny offirst-principles calculations. The present comment reconciles Ref. [JETPLetters 105 (8), 477-483 (2017)] with the literature by supplementing thediscussion with a missing and critical account on the stability and electronicstructure of the T- versus 8P-models of Si(331).

A comment on "Different STM Images of the Superstructure on a Clean Si(133)-6x2 Surface" (JETP Letters 105 (8), 477-483 (2017))