Well, if even in paper title there was explanation what's X then your clarity of title is dubious...
the comment is referring to the title of the fourth paper I linked to in this comment:
- Nature Materials: Buckled two-dimensional Xene sheets
- Physics Letters A: Can freestanding Xene monolayers behave as excitonic insulators?
- Physical Review B. High-temperature tunable superfluidity of polaritons in Xene monolayers in an optical microcavity
- Journal of Materials Chemistry C: Designing 3D topological insulators by 2D-Xene (X = Ge, Sn) sheet functionalization in GaGeTe-type structures
Of course the "(X = Ge, Sn)" in the title is to specify which Xenes are covered by the paper, not to define Xene.
My questions are:
- Is the clarity of my question's title really "dubious"?
- Is "dubious" even a good adjective to use in cases like this? To me it seems only to cast shade or doubt in an opinionated yet vague, unsupported way.
The commenter left a few comments suggesting I didn't know what I was talking about and used the wrong words, and then proceeded to edit the title, seemingly without actually checking to see if the terminology was accepted usage or not, probably lead to a few quick close votes. I grabbed the four papers from a quick search result to demonstrate that these are standard usages, yet somehow there are still further comments that my "clarity of title is dubious..."