From: "Graeme Day" 
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 16:49:33 -0500
To: chemrg@showme.missouri.edu
Subject: Group 1 Evaluation of Group 3
Mime-Version: 1.0

(A) Evaluating Unit: Group 1 - The Focking Computational Chemists

(B) Evaluated Unit: Group 3 - The Hueckelberries

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories
(1) Context Definition and Selection: 12 Points (0-15)

(2) Problem Definition and Selection: 13 Points (0-15)

(3) Choice of Methodology: 13 Points (0-15)
Not really much other choice, given that DFT wasn't on the list of
methodologies we could choose from.

(4) Scope of Project: 10 Points (0-15)
EHMO is very fast. You could have tried varying the bond distances more
than
0.1A.

(5) Interpretation: 12 Points (0-15)

(6) Facilities & Feasibility: 5 Points (0-5)

(7) Timeline: 5 Points (0-5)

(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. 11 Points (0-15)
These calculations could not stand on their own as a research proposal.
They
would be an interesting complement to an experimental study.

Total: 81

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 10:54:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: jianzheng shi 
To: chemrg@showme.missouri.edu
Subject: peer evaluation of group 3 by group 2
MIME-Version: 1.0

(A) Unit Number and Unit Name of Evaluating Unit
Group 2 nitrosamine

(B) Unit Number and Unit Name of Evaluated Unit
The Hueckelberries (Bruce & Sang

(C) Responses to Various Evaluation Categories

(1) Context Definition and Selection: 14 Points 

(2) Problem Definition and Selection: 10 Points 

(3) Choice of Methodology: 12 Points 

(4) Scope of Project: 12 Points 

(5) Interpretation: 12 Points 

(6) Facilities & Feasibility: 4 Points

(7) Timeline: 3 Points 

(8) Pros & Cons: The Verdict. 12 Points

Total 79

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 11:52:30 -0500 (CDT)
From: Leonid Breydo 
X-Sender: c659703@sp2n17.missouri.edu
To: chemrg@showme.missouri.edu
Subject: evaluation of group 3 by group 4
MIME-Version: 1.0

A. Group 4, The Hamitonophiles
B. Group 3, The Hueckelberries
C. 1. 13
	Well defined and relatively interesting topic.
    2. 13
	Solution of this problem (if done right) is definitely a step
forward.
    3. 8
	Hoffman himself acknowledged that you cannot optimize bond lengths
in EHMO (see one of the POTW). And its usage for transition states was
hardly ever implied in the original method.
    4. 13
	Use of EHMO allows study of very broad variety of systems. Authors
definitely undertand what they want though last moment change in the
subject didn't look nice.
    5. 11
	The problem with proposed interpretation is that it is too narrow
and doesn't take into account intrinsic errors of the method.
    6. 5
    7. 5
    8. 12
	It's a good proposal though more prior research about other
possible computational methods would help. Its very large and relatively
unusual system for computations and it definitely made life harder for
authors.

Total=80


Leonid Breydo

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 09:58:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Emky: Chaser of Dragons" 
X-Sender: c651091@sp2n17.missouri.edu
To: chemrg@showme.missouri.edu
Subject: Peer evaluation of group 3 by group 5
MIME-Version: 1.0




Section 1: 12/15
    Too brief. Elaboration on the idea would have fired our interest some
more.

Section 2: 11.5/15
   With no restrictions on cost, time, etc., are you sure EHMO is the only
method available? 

Section 3: 12/15
   You mention that EHMO is not good for dissociations, so why use it? 

Section 4: 13/15
   
Section 5: 12/15
   How exactly will you obtain the electron density, and how will you
manipulate it?

Section 6: 4/5

Section 7: 4/5

Section 8: 11.5/15
   We were not convinced!

Total: 80/100