Abstract
Experimental data on secondary‐ions yields recently reported by Deline et al. are analyzed critically. It is shown that whereas the results for oxygen bombardment support earlier findings concerning positive‐secondary‐ion emission, the negative‐ion yields observed under cesium impact reveal previously unknown features. A unified explanation for secondary‐ion yields cannot be deduced from the published results. Simple (exponential) laws may be found only under certain experimental conditions or after averaging procedures.