Recently Rao et al. (1999, Phil. Mag. A, 79, 1167) claimed reasonable agree
ment between their results for cross-slip activation energies (CSAEs) in Ni
(from atomistic simulation) and in Cu (from scaling of the Ni result) and
experimental results. Furthermore, the atomistic result for Cu by Rasmussen
et al. (1997, Phys. Rev. B, 56, 2977) was described as deviating 'signific
antly' from theirs. This comment demonstrates that Rao et al.'s scaling app
roach is too simple and that it is possible to obtain good agreement betwee
n atomistic estimates of CSAEs with a more accurate, yet still approximate,
scaling approach. It is noted that no experimentally derived value for the
CSAE in Ni has been published.