Since we feel that our critique 2 has served both to modify Payne's original position and to rebut his present reply 1, nothing will be gained by restating our arguments. The reader now has the evidence before him and can judge on the basis of his own knowledge and calculations the validity of each of our positions.
There remains, however, the important question of what should be the necessary and sufficient requirements of a research paper. In his original paper 3 Payne gives data which give the reader the impression that valid values of the double layer capacitance and exchange current density of the platinum/hydrogen electrode were determined. In addition, Payne proposed a new instrumental technique (TDR) to study electrode processes but he now 1 says that TDR was not actually used in his electrochemical measurements. In his reply x Payne further admits that "The paper was not offered as a definitive study of the platinum/hydrogen electrode..." and that the i 0 value he gave "was presented as no more than an estimate". Neither in the original paper 3 nor in the reply ~ does Payne attempt to give limitations to the numbers he presented. Thus from a scientific standpoint, the values he gave for the double layer capacitance and exchange current density have no meaning. Hence, in summary, Payne's published paper neither really applies his proposed technique to an electrochemical problem nor does he present data of value to the scientific community.
REFEI~ENCES