# Comment on "Atomic structure and electron impact excitation of Al-like ions (Ga--Br)" by HB Wang and G Jiang in At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 148 (2022) 101532

Source: [Comment on "Atomic structure and electron impact excitation of Al-like ions (Ga--Br)" by HB Wang and G Jiang in At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 148 (2022) 101532](<https://www.sota2.com/research/paper/68fa44561e209131ce91057e>)

Collection index: [llms.txt](<https://www.sota2.com/research/llms.txt>)

Data updated: 2025-10-25T04:44:56.489Z

Authors: K.M. Aggarwal, K. W. Smith

Published: 2023-05-19T14:32:18.000Z

## Abstract

In a recent paper, Wang and Jiang (At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 148 (2022) 101532) have reported data for energy levels, radiative rates (A-values), and effective collision strengths ($\\Upsilon$) for some transitions of five Al-like ions, namely Ga~XIX, Ge~XX, As~XXI, Se~XXII, and Br~XXIII. On a closer examination we find that their reported data for energy levels and A-values are generally correct, but not for $\\Upsilon$. Their $\\Upsilon$ values, for all transitions (allowed or forbidden) and for all ions, invariably decrease at higher temperatures. This is mainly because they have adopted a limited range of electron energies for the calculations of collision strengths. We demonstrate this with our calculations with the Flexible Atomic Code (FAC), and conclude that their $\\Upsilon$ values are inaccurate, unreliable, and should not be adopted in any applications or modelling analysis.

## Recorded benchmark results

A research result applies to its stated dataset, split, metric and evaluation configuration. Compare like-for-like settings, preserve the metric's unit and direction, and distinguish paper-reported results from independent reproduction. The best result recorded here is not a claim of exhaustive, current global coverage.

## Original sources and implementation

[Original paper](<https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.11704>)

[PDF](<https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.11704.pdf>)