performed using the nuclear structure properties determined within the HFB-17 mass model [@go09], the neutron-nucleus optical potential of Ref. [@ko03] and the NLD obtained within the combinatorial method [@go08]. The latter model not only reproduces quite accurately resonance spacing data, but also the energy-dependence of the total level density extracted consistently for the Mo isotopes through the Oslo method. The Oslo data and the theoretical NLD are compared in Fig. 9 of Ref. [@go08]. To remain coherent, it is of prime importance to use the same NLD prescription and normalizing values at the neutron separation energy for the cross section calculation as those used in the extraction of the RSF with the Oslo method. As shown in Fig. \[fig01\], different NLD models lead to different experimental RSFs.

![\[fig04\] (Color online) Comparison of experimental [@ka64; @mu76] and calculated $^{97}$Mo$(n,\gamma)^{98}$Mo cross section obtained with the GLO (solid line), GLO-lo (blue dashed line), GLO-up1 (red dotted line) and GLO-up2 (green, dash-dot line) models. ](fig_97Mong_glo.pdf)

We compare in Fig. \[fig04\] experimental $^{97}$Mo$(n,\gamma)^{98}$Mo data with the calculated cross section obtained with the original GLO model, the GLO-lo model with $T_f=0.3$ MeV, and the two parameterizations of the upbend, GLO-up1 and GLO-up2. It is seen from 