JerMa88/TPR_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Peer review of: ATP-dependent hydroxylation of an unactivated primary carbon with water (2023)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have thoroughly addressed all of my comments.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
    The authors have spent some efforts in addressing three reviewers’ comments on the manuscript.
 Personally I think that based on the novelty of the work, the manuscript can be accepted with very
 few minor effort.
 For the introduction, I still believe that the authors need to re-organize the introduction on C-H
 bonds hydroxylation. Please note that the quality of an introduction is not necessarily bound to its
 length. Please add references to the peroxidases and peroxygenases.
 Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
 I reviewed the original submission by C. Jacoby and co-workers. In the revised manuscript, the
 authors addressed most of my initial concerns and those of the other reviewers. Grammar,
 wording and sentence structure have been improved. Some sentences were re-written for the
 revised manuscript and some new phrases were added. I have no further concerns.
Peer review of: Zuo1 supports G4 structure formation and directs repair toward nucleotide excision repair (2020)

RR2
Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have fully addressed my concerns in their revised version of the manuscript and I am
 now fully supportive of publication in Nature Communications
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 Considering the actual pandemic situation and the difficulty to get access to biological material
 such as antibodies I acknowledge the efforts of the authors who have try to answer to my queries,
 I am not sure that gammaH2AX is the perfect marker to measure NER efficacy and the paper
 would have been much stronger with proper approaches but I guess that the experiments
 performed by the authors is probably a beginning of answer and I agree that the paper deserved
 publication in Nature Communications
Peer review of: A Keplerian Ag90 nest of Platonic and Archimedean polyhedra in different symmetry groups (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
I carefully read the revised paper. The authors have properly addressed the reviewers’ comments. I think this manuscript can be accepted in Nature Comm.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have addressed all my concerns. I would like to recommmend the acceptance.
Peer review of: Exploiting natural chemical photosensitivity of anhydrotetracycline and tetracycline for dynamic a (2020)



RR2
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have addressed my concerns.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 I thank the authors for their thoughtful reply and nice additional studies.
 The authors have also convinced me that this system has distinct utility from the rtTA/tTA pair,
 and the new data estimating the # of cycles that can be carried out is very helpful in drawing this
 distinction further. (I agree that there is no way anyone would do 100 cycles of washout &
 addition, but could envision experiments involving 10+ cycles of UV clearance & aTc re-
 stimulation.)
 Their quantification of growth/viability in the presence of high UV doses and photo-degraded aTc is
 also quite helpful, but it raises one additional important issue.
 The authors use an assay involving cell counting normalized to spiked-in beads after 5 h from an
 initial OD of 0.0001, and while I am sure they did this work carefully, it is difficult to relate their
 measurements to standard estimates of bacterial growth rates (e.g. measuring a doubling time or
 growth curve) without more information.
 Crucially, the reader cannot easily tell what OD the cultures have reached after 5 hours. I’m sure
 the authors agree that if the cultures made it to stationary phase, slow-growing ones may catch up
 to faster ones and any differences in growth rate would appear erroneously small, even if they had
 once been substantial. Notably, no slow-growing controls are included so that the accuracy of the
 method can be assessed, even though the authors assert that their method is sensitive.
 A back of the envelope calculation suggests that this might be problematic. For a doubling time of
 20 min, an initial OD of 1e-4 and assuming OD increases linearly with cell density, 14 cell
 generations would be sufficient to get to an OD of 1.6 in ~4.67 hours. But of course this depends
 on media density and there may be a lag phase before log-phase growth begins.
 Could the authors please report the OD of at least the control cultures after 5 h in the Figure S3
 experiments? Better yet, a growth curve showing OD over the 5 h time period? If the ODs are still
 reasonably low & consistent with log phase growth (i.e., OD <= 0.5), then I will be satisfied that
 UV-A and photo-degradation toxicity is unlikely to be an issue. On the off-chance they turn out to
 be in the neighborhood of stationary phase, I ask for these measurements to be re-done more
 carefully, with growth rates over time and additional slow-growing controls.
Peer review of: Site-dependent reactivity of MoS2 nanoparticles in hydrodesulfurization of thiophene (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have satisfactorily dealt with my concerns and suggestions and those of the other reviewers. It remains an open question whether this contribution is suitable for the general audience of Nature Communications or whether it is more suitable for a specialist journal, but I am happy to leave this decision to the editor.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have addressed all points raised by the three referees in a detailed and well-argued way. I have no problem with publication now in its current form.
Peer review of: Probing the active site in single-atom oxygen reduction catalysts via operando X-ray and electroc (2020)

RR2
Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
Remarks to the Author:
The revised manuscript has adequately addressed all key concerns raised by the reviewers. I therefore recommend for the publication in Nature Communications.
Reviewer #2:
Remarks to the Author:
The responds to the review comments are proper and informative at a satisfying level. Reviewer likes to see more clear discussion on the comparison between Co L2,3-edge XAS and Co K-edge XANES in regards to the intrinsic characterization specs of soft x-rays and hard x-rays, surface sensitivity (5-10 nm) vs bulk sensitivity (> microns), and the chemical compositions.
Peer review of: Micro triboelectric ultrasonic device for acoustic energy transfer and signal communication (2020)


RR2
 Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  This revised manuscript clearly addressed the current limits of TENG technology in area of micro-/nano-
 electronics: miniaturization and chip-sized integration. The presented work focused on the integration of
 TENG and MEMS technology and demonstrated a good attempt to build a triboelectric device completely by
 MEMS process. They provided a solution to the addressed issues by proposing a comprehensive structure
 design method and a feasible fabrication approach. With the fabricated micro-triboelectric device, they
 characterized its capability of capturing ultrasound energy through oil and sound-attenuation medium and
 data communication. Although the power output is relatively low at present stage, this work is still an
 important advance in both fields of TENG and MEMS. In particular, the integration with MEMS technology
 may help TENG find a mass production way with standard consistency to the market. Last but not least, the
 authors also gave a reasonable estimation of the theoretically maximum output voltage/power for the micro-
 triboelectric device in the revised version. The calculated value shows the micro- triboelectric device does
 have huge potential for harvesting ultrasound energy. Overall, I would strongly recommend this revised
 manuscript for publication in Nature Communications
 
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have satisfactorily answered to all my questions and concerns.

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
   1. Although the authors claim that the best novelty of this work is the integration of the triboelectric device
 and MEMS technology, I still recommend that the author make more experimental attempts to increase the
 output power of the device. Because the output of the device in this work is too low to achieve the energy
 harvesting application.
 2. I don't agree with the author's answer to question 4 I raised. According to the author's answer, the actual
 driving voltage on the piezo transducer (Vload) is approximately half of the source voltage, which means the
 resistance of the piezoelectric transducer is equal to the output resistance of the signal generator (i.e., 50
 ohm). But actually, the resistance of the piezoelectric transducer is much higher than 50 ohms. This must be
 better specified.
 3. For implantable devices, biocompatibility is very important. The authors should provide evidence for the
 biocompatibility of silicon-based devices and how related processing if needed, would affect the device
 performance.
 4. Since the device in this work can’t power electronic equipment, some sentences should be modified, such
 as in the abstract, “Accordingly, a prototyped acoustic energy transfer system was demonstrated for
 powering implanted devices.” Powering implanted devices has not been demonstrated. The authors should
 review the manuscript, reorganize the abstract, introduction, and conclusion sections.
Peer review of: An equitable redistribution of unburnable carbon (2020)

RR3   
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
  In response to my request to contrast HDI- vs production-based status of countries, the authors have
 provided a thoughtful and important section in the manuscript and SI that places production-based
 equity perspectives and its limitations in the broader landscape of equity frameworks - I am grateful
 to the authors for taking the comments seriously. I am satisfied that the article is suitable for
 publication and makes a valuable contribution.
Peer review of: An equitable redistribution of unburnable carbon (2020)


RR2   
 <b>REVIEWER COMMENTS</B> Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
  I am satisfied that the authors have made substantial and beneficial improvements to address my
 comments. I think the historical benefits scenario, interpreted as rents from fossil production, is
 consistent with the supply-side focus of the paper, and provides a useful alternative to HDI-based
 allocation. I also think the addition of SSP1 is useful, as a lower demand scenario (SSP3 probably
 doesn't yield either 1.75C or 2C, so it is superfluous).
 However, one remaining suggestion would be very helpful in my eyes for readers (in light of the
 additional scenarios):
 I see no descriptive characterization, either in the manuscript, or SI, of the relationship between HDI
 and fossil production. That is, measures of well-being are causally related to energy consumption, not
 production. Given that this paper focus on production gains, it would be beneficial to characterize the
 extent to which HDI correlates to fossil production - many of the key fossil producers (e.g. Russia,
 middle east) are not low HDI, and many low HDI countries are importers. Providing some descriptive
 information on countries mapping to these indicators can be an very informative to illuminates the two
 contrasting scenarios - one based on HDI and the other based on fossil rents.
 I have reviewed the article and the responses to Reviewer 4�s comments. I do think that the authors
 have provided the requested clarity on the assumptions behind the chosen carbon taxes, but I still find
 the choices arbitrary � in particular, the 50% of VHHD for the HHD. Why not peg the decrease to the
 (wtd) avg GDP of the group (and if this is approximately the basis, then it should be stated), or some
 other empirical basis?
Peer review of: Single-site pyrrolic-nitrogen-doped sp2-hybridized carbon materials and their pseudocapacitance (2020)

RR3
Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 I have carefully checked the revision parts. The authors well revised the manuscript. Now, the quality
 of the manuscript becomes much better than previous version. General reader can be convinced the
 "Single Pyrrolic Nitrogen Species" as well as its great pseudocapacitance. Thus I recommend the
 manuscript to be published.
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have done a lot of work to address the reviewers’ concerns, and the quality of the
 manuscript has been improved. Although the reviewer understand the technical limitation and the
 impact of the COVID-2019, the reviewer still can’t be persuaded by the present data. Reviewer doesn't
 think the structure of the SPNCMs is as what they have shown in Figure 1c. By the XPS, XRD, and
 Raman analysis, the SPNCMs should have abundant defects and a certain amount of oxygen.
 Therefore, the reviewer really can not accept it for publication unless the authors provide more direct
 evidences for this structure (Figure 1c), although the author cites a lot of literature.
Peer review of: A solvent-assisted ligand exchange approach enables metal-organic frameworks with diverse and (2020)

 


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
  The revised version of the manuscript "A Solvent-Assisted Ligand Exchange Approach Enables Metal-
 Organic Frameworks with Diverse and Complex Architectures" by Ajayan and coworkers addresses all
 my previous comments. It should be published in Nature Communications as is.
  The manuscript have been revised carefully according to the comment,and I recommend it for
 publication.
Peer review of: Air pollution control strategies directly limiting national health damages in the US (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have done considerable work to update the analysis and manuscript in response to my
 original comments. I thank the authors for their effort, and feel like the manuscript is much improved
 and more relevant to the current happenings in the power sector.
 From the stand-point of the power sector representation in this paper, I feel like things are robust and
 represented well. I have no concerns with this paper proceeding forwarding.
Peer review of: Liquid metal-based synthesis of high performance monolayer SnS piezoelectric nanogenerators (2020)

RR4
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
I am satisfied withe the changes made to the manuscript and recommend its acceptance.
Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author):
    The authors have fully responded to my questions and the paper is well revised. It is ready for
 publishing.
Peer review of: Liquid metal-based synthesis of high performance monolayer SnS piezoelectric nanogenerators (2020)

RR3
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
All my questions were well addressed, I would like to recommend publication in Nature
 Communications.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
  
  The authors have addressed most of the points raised in the previous round of review, and in
 principle, the manuscript is acceptable. However, the authors may want to reconsider the
 necessity of including the section on "piezotronic" effects in this material, when they do not
 actually measure this at all. In order to demonstrate the modulation of barrier height (as defined
 by the piezotronic effect), they would need to show current-voltage data to show how strain
 affects barrier height. This is not necessary to the conclusions presented in the paper, which relate
 to the piezoelectric effect in this material. I find this part confusing as a reader, and cannot see
 why it is being highlighted if the effect is not actually being measured/demonsrated.
 Also, I am not convinced that "power/unit length" is an effective parameter, and I am not sure
 why the authors feel so strongly about this. They mention this in the abstract stating that it is
 highest in their material, but in the text they only compare it to one other published report. Hence
 I fail to see the significance. I think the results are quite significant as they are without the need to
 introduce new parameters into the literature which have a limited purpose. Perhaps they can
 justify the need for this by presenting a table comparing with a larger number of reports.
 Lastly, it is understandable that the authors are unable to provide a detailed PFM study to fully
 address the question about the allocation of directions, but the justification for their choice of
 indices should be stated in the text to avoid confusion to readers, just as they have explained in
 the response letter.
 I would recommend that the above (minor) points be addressed in the manuscript prior to
 publication.
 
Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author):
 The manuscript by Khan et al. has presented a new technique for synthesis of SnS 2D materials.
 They have demonstrated the piezoelectric property of SnS by two different measurement
 techniques. Exploring piezoelectricity in 2D materials add a new facet in studying its novel
 applications. My comments about the paper are listed below:
 1. The original report WS2 by Wu et al. illustrate the piezoelectric dependence of odd layers and
 even layers with considering the projected symmetry. For odd layers sucha s 1, 3 and 5, WS2 has
 piezoelectricity, but for even layers such as 2 and 4 layers, there is no piezoelectricity. As for the
 current work, SnS, have the authors observed such phenomenon?
 2. The manuscript mainly present output voltage of the nanogenerator, but there is no data
 presented about the output current. Both current and voltage signals are required to prove that
 the nanogenerator gives out power.
 3. The number of figures in the text are too many and they can be combined, fig. 1+ fig. 2 can be
 one figure.
Peer review of: An organic/inorganic electrode-based hydronium-ion battery (2020)

RR4
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  Based on my knowledge the presented battery should not work at all in frozen electrolyte and I
 consider the fact that it does work to be highly unexpected. When you come across something
 truly spectacular and unexpected it is, in my opinion, our responsibility as researchers to find out
 why nature behave in such unexpected manner. Whether this should be done prior to or after
 publication of the spectacular result depends on the risk that the publisher is willing to take and is
 hence, in my opinion, an editorial decision to make. I have no doubt in that you report what you
 observe and the risk, in this case, is that the observed behavior is due to something more trivial.
 Excluding all uncertainties in experimental research is impossible and I therefor favor demand for
 coherent models accounting for the experimental observations reported. In the presented work the
 low-temperature behavior is in conflict with conductance data presented in the manuscript as well
 as with current knowledge regarding electron transfer and ion diffusion in frozen media, all of
 which suggest that the cell resistance should increase by order(s) of magnitudes if the electrolyte
 is frozen. I do, however, appreciate the limited resources available to each individual research
 group and the possibility that other research groups may be better equipped to provide a coherent
 model for the data presented in the present study. In order not to delay publication any further I
 therefor recommend publishing the manuscript in its present form.
Peer review of: An organic/inorganic electrode-based hydronium-ion battery (2020)



RR2
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  I am satisfied with authors’ response. The MS is now in a good shape be accepted in Nature
 Commun.
  In the revised report the Authors have addressed all questions raised by this reviewer and made
 corresponding changes to the manuscript. However, the low-temperature behavior is still
 confusing and the added discussion and evaluated diffusion coefficients rather add to the confusion
 than provide solid support for the observed low-temperature behavior. Without data that actually
 supports and explain the observed low-temperature behavior this reviewer is reluctant to
 recommend publication of this work.
 My criticism is as follows: The cycling data presented in figure 3b, figure 4b and figure 4c suggest
 IR-drops on the orders of 100 mV, 120 mV and 200 mV at room temperature, at -40 Centigrade
 and at -70 Centigrade, respectively. (I used the 0.16mA/cm2-data to evaluate the IR-drop).
 Hence, going from a liquid electrolyte to a frozen electrolyte the resistance is increased by a factor
 of 1.2 and further increased at -70 Centigrade by a factor of 2. At the same time the diffusion
 coefficient is reduced by 7 orders of magnitude, from 7.12*10^-6 cm2/s at room temperature to
 3.15*10^-13 cm2/s in frozen electrolyte. This effect alone should induce a dramatic increase of
 the cell resistance. Why is this not observed? In addition to the mass transport the two cell
 reactions must involve significant reorganization energy that should give activation barriers,
 contributing to an increased resistance at lower temperatures. Also this effect should, in this
 reviewer’s opinion, give significantly larger effects on the kinetics compared to what is observed.
 As the low temperature observations are spectacular a thorough investigation on how the battery
 can operate in frozen electrolyte with close to no effect from mass transport must be provided. In
 order to make the low-temperature data convincing evaluation of the activation barriers involved
 in the redox reactions could also be evaluated.
 Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
The manuscript is significantly improved. I recommend its publication.
Peer review of: 4D imaging of lithium-batteries using correlative neutron and X-ray tomography with a virtual unr (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  The revised manuscript is excellent and ready for publication. This is a truly excellent work and will be
 studied intensely by battery and imaging researchers for years. Great work!!!
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
 The revision has demonstrated much improved technicality and consistency. This is an important
 contribution to the very active field of the battery research. However, given the lack of pressing
 scientific case, and the technique-oriented presentation style, I consider this work most attractive to
 specialists.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
 All of my concerns have been sufficiently addressed by the revision, and the paper is improved due to
 the additions made by the authors.
 I will mention that some of the added discussions within the paper show grammatical errors or
 awkward wording issues, such as lines:
 108-110
 192-194
 313
 443
 
 I suggest that the authors carefully edit/review the added text before final publication, but do not
 think this requires another round of reviews.
Peer review of: Strain engineering of two-dimensional multilayered heterostructures for beyond-lithium-based re (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The author has addressed all of issues raised by this reviewer and it can be published in the
 current form.
  Thanks for authors' response in detail and the resopnse is reasonable except Comment 3.
 As the as-synthesized VOPO4-graphene cathode contains no K ion, the cell will be first discharged
 (potassiated) and then charged (depotassiated). In the manuscript, the depotassiated capacity is
 lower than the potassiated capacity, and the authors stated that it possibly originated from the
 introduction of protons during the depotassiation process. I wonder how to introduce the proton
 during the depotassiation process and how to lead to the increasing of potassiated capacity.