JerMa88/TPR_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Peer review of: Impact of dual-layer solid-electrolyte interphase inhomogeneities on early-stage defect formation (2020)


RR2
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 I can see the authors have made quite some revision and it is now a much clearer and improved
 version. While I appreciate all their effort and the capability of FFDXM in detecting Si structural
 deformation as early as from the second cycle, I will have to mention the deformation and
 amorphization of Si at the first cycle has been well known by CV or other characterization methods.
 The authors have done good scientific research to visually observed the deformation using FFDXM
 while I have reservation on how the understanding will help to mitigate that. Because deformation and
 amorphization, which lead to defect formation, has long been known thought it is not visually or as
 quantitative. I also would like to remind the authors that there are quite some mechanical study on Si
 deformation from Insun Yoon and Shuman Xia etc to detect the deformation of Si and the deformation
 can be observed at the first cycle.
 Another question that I have is the role of SEI on Si deformation. I think this could be very good point
 and scientifically new to allow the paper to be published. However, I feel the current support is not
 convincing enough. I would like to suggest the authors to repeat the experiment in ether electrolyte or
 other electrolyte that is known to be stable against Si or metal to see if there will be any change to
 the "defect"/structural deformation. Although Si amorphization is also known to happen in ether
 electrolyte, inoic liquid or solid Li2O (some in-situ TEM study), the "defect" formation may be different
 enough to study the role of SEI on Si structure change.
 With that, I am not very enthusiastic for the paper to be published in current form but I am good if it
 were. I will be very excited if the authors do see different "defect" formation process between different
 electrolyte and elucidate the role of SEI. I believe that would be an exciting work to the community.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors gave detailed reply to all of the questions and remarks of the referees. They have
 thoroughly rewritten the manuscript including new measurements and data strenthening the major
 claims of the paper. With these modifications I recommend the paper for publication.
Peer review of: Employing a MEMS plasma switch for conditioning high-voltage kinetic energy harvesters (2020)



RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  You did a very good job at addressing all the feedback from the Reviewers. The changes motivated
 by your response greatly improved the quality of your manuscript. In my opinion, this paper is
 now excellent and should be accepted for publication in its current form. I hope you are doing well
 in the midst of the pandemic. Good luck in your research!
Peer review of: Unlocking the passivation nature of the cathode–air interfacial reactions in lithium ion batteries (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
 The authors addressed all of my questions and comments satisfactorily. I recommend its
 publication in Nature Comms.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The manuscript is improved after the careful revision. The reviewers concerns are well addressed.
 I recommend publication of this revised manuscript.
Peer review of: Radiation-resistant metal-organic framework enables efficient separation of krypton fission gas fr (2020)



RR2
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  I still think that major issues raised by the reviewer have not been fully addressed. I recommend the
publication if the following points are clearly addressed.
  The authors attributed the observed radioactive stability of SIFSIX-3-Cu to the stronger Cu-N bonds
 than other M-N analogues by mentioning the shorter Cu-N bond distance (1.9 Å) than the other the M-
 N bond distances (2.1 Å). From the PXRD measurements after the gamma radiation at different
 intensities, the radioactive stabilities of SIFSIX-M show the following order: Cu > Co > Fe > Zn and
 Ni. Could this order be explained by the bond distances? The authors should clearly explain this.
 The authors argued that they chose the right material for the 85Kr separation from nuclear
 reprocessing plants based on two criteria: (1) Preferential adsorption of Xe and CO2 over Kr so these
 two gases can be separated in the first bed, and (2) Preferential adsorption of Kr over N2 and O2 so
 that Kr can be adsorbed in the second bed. However, I do not understand why the same adsorbent
 material should be used for both beds. I think two different adsorbent materials can be used for each
 bed. Since SBMOF-1, Ni-MOF-74 and Ag mordenite showed remarkable performance for Xe/Kr
 separation, these materials can be used for the first bed. Therefore, it would be more meaningful if
the radioactive stability of these benchmark adsorbents are also compared.
  Although the authors cited the references including the Kr/N2 separation data of Ag mordenite and
 SBMOF-1, these should be shown in the supporting information for the comparisons.
 I found the following paper: “Adsorptive separation of xenon/krypton mixtures using a zirconium-
 based metal-organic framework with high hydrothermal and radioactive stabilities, Journal of
Hazardous Materials 320 (2016) 513–520.” This paper also studied radioactive stability of a zirconium-
  based MOF for Xe/Kr separation. I guess the authors may have not noticed this paper. It should be
 properly referenced.
 Page 8, line 165: “SBMOF-1 showed low Kr/CO2 which prohibit the separation of the Kr in pure form.”
 --> Is low Kr/CO2 correct? It could be low Kr/O2.
 Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors addressed most of the issues raised by three reviewers reasonably well. Thus, I am
 supportive of acceptance. However, both reviewers 2 and 3 suggested several references to be
 included and it is disappointing to see only one was cited. I hope they will all be included in the final
 version.

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
 Authors have suitably revised the manuscript. By and large all the comments are addressed
 successfully. I recommend the manuscript to be accepted as is.
Peer review of: Spatial quantification of dynamic inter and intra particle crystallographic heterogeneities within li (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The queries have been addressed adequately. I recommend acceptance in the present form.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
    The authors have addressed my comments nicely.
 I recommend the publication of this manuscript in its present form.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author): Publish as revised
Peer review of: Direct and indirect Z-scheme heterostructure-coupled photosystem enabling cooperation of CO2 (2020)



RR2  
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have carefully addressed my concerns with supplementary experimental characterizations
 and performance tests. The reasons for high selectivity to product HCOOH and the permeation
 phenomenon of redox shuttle Fe2+/Fe3+ are also
 proposed. I think the revised version can be accepted for publication in Nature Communication.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The revised paper has been a great improvement in quality, and some minor revision still be needed
 before publishing in Nature Communications. My comments and suggestions are the following:
 1. I think in this work there is still lack the strong evidence to support the statement “Cu2O fully
 covered over Pt nanoparticles” and “core-shell structure” in the revised manuscript just from the
 present TEM images and EDS mapping results.
 2. To be more clear, please add some explanations for the effect of amount of metals on the final
 photocatalytic results.
 3. In the revised manuscript, Page 8 line 230, the authors claimed that the metals (Pt, Ir and Cu)
 keep almost the same before and after the reaction, however, according to the Figure S10, the XPS of
 metals show big difference between fresh and used state, especially for Pt a shoulder peak can be
 observed in the left peak. Thus, the XPS of these metals should be reanalyzed and point out these
 difference.
 4. The Figure 2 and Figure 8 in this paper, brackets are missing.
5. Please keep the same Y axis titles of DRS spectra of the samples in this work.
  Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The revised manuscript can be acceptable for publication
Peer review of: Engineering unsymmetrically coordinated Cu-S1N3 single atom sites with enhanced oxygen reduc (2020)

RR2      
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 I think that the most critical issue of this work was to demonstrate the existence of a Cu-S bond
 integrated in a CuNxCy moiety, and not attributable to other copper sulfide species. The authors have
 addressed the point in a satisfactory manner, and the inclusion of S K-edge XAS experiments
 improved and completed the study. I then recommend the publication of the manuscript, but I also
 suggest to remove the linear combination fitting part, because these fits have been performed with a
 calculated spectrum of CuN4. A computed spectrum is not a real data, and can introduce some
 artefacts.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have made tremendous efforts to answer all the questions of this reviewer, and added
 additionnal experimental results in the revised manuscript.
 In particular, the linear combination fitting figures R20-R22 highlight that it is not possible to fit the
 xanes spectrum properly only with CuN4 and Cu-sulphides, further giving indirect evidence of the
 presence of Cu single atoms coordinated with both N and S.
 The manuscript can be accepted without further modification.
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors addressed all my concerns with satisfactory, so I recommend this manuscript publication
 in Nat Comm.
Peer review of: Heterostructures formed through abraded van der Waals materials (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The comments have been considered and made corrections.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have added relevant information and the manuscript can be acceptted.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have dealt with all criticisms adequately
Peer review of: Vibrational wavepacket dynamics in Fe carbene photosensitizer determined with femtosecond X- (2020)



RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors addressed the concerns raised for the original version of the manuscript. except one point (see below). With the notable improvements regarding the plausibility of kinetic model assignment as well as the overall readability of the paper, the authors clearly stated the limitations of the demonstrated structural analysis.
Nevertheless, the issue with the terminology was not properly resolved and should be rectified prior to the publication. For macromolecules, the terminology “WAXS” makes sense to complement the term “SAXS” in that the latter refers to small scattering angle (Q less than 0.2 Å-1) whereas the former refers to larger scattering angle (Q larger than 0.2 Å-1). However, in the case of small molecules, a clear criteria that distinguishes between small and wide angle scattering has not been established. If we consider the maximum Q of typical solution scattering experiments for small molecules which has been reported so far (for example 9 Å-1), the maximum Q of 3.5 Å-1 for this work is not large enough to be emphasized as “WIDE” angle scattering at all. Hence, the authors should not use the term “WAXS” so that this term can be used in the future when much larger Q values become accessible with the aid of technical improvements. Instead, more generally accepted terms such as “X-ray solution scattering” and “diffuse X-ray scattering” should be used.
It seems there is a typo in Fig. S32: “oscillatory Kα XES (B, E, F) ...” should be “oscillatory Kα XES (B, E, H) ...”.
Hyotcherl Ihee
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
Dear Editor,
the authors have addressed all raised points convincingly and have made, when needed, the corresponding modifications to the manuscript.
As already mentioned in my initial report, I think that this paper is highly relevant for the field of time-resolved x-ray science and I recommend its publication in NComms.
Peer review of: Electrode interface optimization advances conversion efficiency and stability of thermoelectric de  (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Good for being accepted for publication now.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
    The authors provided sufficient justifications in the revised manuscript to address most of my initial
 comments on the first version of the manuscript.
 I have no further comments at this point and the manuscript should be ready for publication
Peer review of: Understanding the interface interaction between U3Si2 fuel and SiC cladding (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  This is the revised version of the manuscript following first reviews.
 The manuscript has been significantly improved even if some questions remain unanswered
 (impact of the duration of the tests for example on the interactions observed). However, as the
 authors explain the objectives of the paper are not to qualify a concept but to study phase
 equilibrium to understand U3Si2/SiC interaction. Surely many questions remain in the view of
 developing a concept.
 According to me, taking into account this remark, he manuscript is ready for publication.
 Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
 Reviewer report on the article �Understanding the interface interaction between U3Si2 fuel and SiC
 cladding� by Vancho Kocevski et al.
 Authors addressed the concerns raised in previous review. I recommend the manuscript for
 publication in Nature Communication.
Peer review of: Bio-inspired vertebral design for scalable and flexible perovskite solar cells (2020)


RR2
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Revised manuscript is now satisfactory and paper can be now be published.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author):
    The authors have addressed the questions accordingly. The manuscript can be accepted for publication
 in Nature Communication as is.
  The authors properly addressed all the issues raised by this reviewer. Therefore, I am not negative for
 the publication of this paper in Nature Communications.
  Authors did not properly address some comments raised by the reviewers. This manuscript should be
 reconsidered after addressing the following comments.
 1. Comment 1 from reviewer 4: Authors answered that they added corresponding description and
 comparative advantages in the manuscript. However, I could not find this content in the manuscript.
 2. Comment 2 from reviewer 4: Authors mentioned that variation of several parameters (meniscus
 moving speeds, meniscus spacing and VASP pressure) always leads to the different film thickness and
 quality. Then, there should be some variation in the data in Supplementary Fig. 13. Authors need to
 provide average and standard deviation for the data.
 3. Comment 5 from reviewer 4: Authors added Supplementary Fig. 31 to address the comment about
 adding a comparison table. However, Supplementary Fig. 31 does not provide useful information for
 comparison with the other works. It does not include the corresponding references for the data points
 in the graph. In addition, it does not show the detailed device structure, bending radius, absolute PCE
 values, which will be required for the fair comparison with the other works.
 Reviewer #5 (Remarks to the Author):
 I believe that the author mentioned PEDOT:EVA adhesive property with PET. But my comment is that
 how ITO with PEDOT:EVA recovered the performance including solar cells and electrical property after
 bending. As the authors mentioned in revision letter, ITO is cracked after bending which mean that
 ITO composed In-Sn-O chemical structure is destroyed. However, the authors did not clearly mention
 this point. I believe that this point is very important issue for this paper and need to carefully address
 “why”. And from the DFT calculation, the author only compared to Pb atom with carboxyl group and
 sulfonic radical which indicates that EVA materials is only important for carboxylic group. This
 conclusion can be induced to any materials with carboxylic group can replace the PSS. Therefore, I
 believe that the authors need more clear evidence why EVA is important with PEDOT compared to
 other materials. Finally, “vertebrae” means the similar issue with “recover” but the authors did not
 clearly mention “why”
 Therefore, I don’t recommend publication of this paper in nature communications.
Peer review of: Cathode engineering with perylene-diimide interlayer enabling over 17% efficiency single-junction (2020)


RR3
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author):
  The points raised by this reviewer in the previous round of review have been properly addressed. The
 reviewer thus recommend the acceptance of this manuscript by Nature Communications without
 further change.
  The authors have further improved the quality of their manuscript by providing additional data and
 interpretations. I also appreciate the new Figure S14 including the results of cw photoinduced
 absorption measurements.
 While these data are highly valuable, there is still an issue with the interpretation of the rapid first
 order decay of the transient signal in the PDINO-treated blend. Here, the authors still insist on their
 interpretation that this rapid decay of the TAS signals is due to charge carrier recombination through
 deep traps situated at the interface between the blend and the PDINO layer. To explain why surface
 traps can induce such fast decays despite the fairly low steady state diffusivities of electrons and
 blends in PM6:Y6, the authors point to the high mobility of photogenerated carriers at early time
 scales, thereby referring to early work by Burke and McGehee, and by Pranculis). In fact, there are
 more reports on high initial mobilities of photogenerated carriers, and some of those indeed suggested
 that electrons in PCBM-based blends can actually transfer through most of the active layer within 50
 ns (e.g. 10.1002/adfm.201400404). However, these measurements were performed under a reverse
 bias of -1 V where the carrier motion is strongly enhanced by drift. More importantly, in order to
 recover the GSB of the PM6 (or Y6), it is not sufficient that one type of carrier gets trapped at a
 surface state. Instead, a photogenerated electron and a photogenerated hole both need to diffuse to
 the same surface state and recombine there. In my opinion, this scenario is very unlikely under the
 given conditions. Therefore, I still doubt that the observed rapid decay of the TAS signals is due to
 trapping and recombination at surface states.
Peer review of: Integrated near-field thermo-photovoltaics for heat recycling (2020)



RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  The questions and concerns I raised in my original report have been carefully addressed by the
 authors. I do not have any further questions.
 I would like to point out that I respectfully disagree with the assessment made by Reviewer 2. I
 believe that the reconfigurable platform (tunable gap) is worthy of investigation, and certainly worthy
 of publication. I think that it is premature to claim at this point that a reconfigurable near-field TPV
 platform is “misguided” and “wrong”. From a technical standpoint, the current manuscript is a
 significant contribution to near-field TPV device development. I think that the scientific community
 should judge whether or not an adjustable platform is the future of near-field TPV.
 In summary, I support publication of this manuscript in Nature Communications. I believe that this
 work is a significant contribution to the field of near-field TPV energy conversion.
 Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
 I am satisfied with the explanations given by the authors and recommend the manuscript for
 publication.
Peer review of: Machine-learning-revealed statistics of the particle-carbon/binder detachment in lithium-ion batt (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have addressed my comments by substantially deepening the discussion of their machine
 learning algorithm. They have also pledged to make the code and data openly available. I think the
 results presented in the manuscript are novel and key additions to the field. I recommend publication
 in Nature Communications.
Peer review of: Tuning lithium-peroxide formation and decomposition routes with single-atom catalysts for lithiu (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have properly revised the manuscript and addressed my initial comments to quantify the
 reaction products. Therefore, I suggest this work for publication.
/Reza Younesi
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  
   The authors answered all my questions and I think it can bring some new insights into the field. There
 are some grammar errors, other than that, I am happy with the current version.
Peer review of: Quantifying and understanding the triboelectric series of inorganic non-metallic materials (2020)

 

RR2
Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors did respond to all the doubts well. The manuscript is also presenting in good order. I
 recommend publishing this manuscript in the current form.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors answered most of questions raised by the reviewer.
Peer review of: 3D microstructure design of lithium-ion battery electrodes assisted by X-ray nano-computed tomo (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Kang Dong
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author):
All comments have been followed, the paper can be published.
  I read the revised manuscript and the response letter. The authors have addressed reviewer's
 comments and the manuscript should be published in Nature Communication.
  The authors have answered all points and revised the manuscript according to the reviewers'
 comments. Therefore, I think the manuscript is now sufficient to be published in Nature
 Communications.
   The authors have considered carefully all our review comments and have revised the manuscript
 accordingly. This Reviewer recommends publication.
Peer review of: Exciton diffusion in two-dimensional metal-halide perovskites (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have acted on referee suggestions. The work is appropriate for Nature Comms.

Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
 I thank the authors for carefully considering the reviewers’ suggestions and improving their paper
 accordingly. I think the re-written section on exciton-polarons is much stronger now and more
 accurately reflects consensus thinking in the community.
I would be pleased to see this work published in Nature Communications.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The revision has satisfactorily addressed my comments as well as other reviewers' comments.
Peer review of: Metal chloride perovskite thin film based interfacial layer for shielding lithium metal from liquid e (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
In this version, the authors well replied to the comments and made the corresponding modifications.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
    I carefully checked the reply from the authors. I think that the authors have addressed very well
 comments and suggestions. It is publishable now.