JerMa88/TPR_Peer_Reviews huggingface dataset:
Peer review of: Identifying degradation patterns of lithium ion batteries from impedance spectroscopy using mac (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The review comments are adequately addressed.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have done due diligence in addressing the comments and with an expanded training data set. The revised manuscript is in good standing.
Peer review of: Lamella-nanostructured eutectic zinc–aluminum alloys as reversible and dendrite-free anodes for (2020)


RR2
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
 I am ok with the revised manuscript. The authors addressed the technical issues that I raised quite
 seriuosly. They provided new data and detailed discussions.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have tried to address my comment, but there is an important contradiction that needs
 further explanation. The author claimed that Zn88Al12 alloy electrode exhibit superior oxidation-
 resistance capability relative to the monometallic Zn electrode, which is from the EIS result. However,
 from the mechanism illustration in the maintext and the answers to the comment 3 of reviewer 2 and
 to the comment 7 of reviewer 1, the author believe another metal with lower standard equilibrium
 potential (Al3+/Al,1.66 V versus SHE) than that Zn2+/Zn (−0.76 V versus SHE) is helpful to form the
 alloy. The author also claim that the Al surface atoms on the Al lamellas prefer to firstly react with O2
 to form Al2O3. Then the question is why the alloy has better oxidation resistance.
Peer review of: Quantifying contact status and the air-breakdown model of charge-excitation triboelectric nanoge (2020)



RR2
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 This manuscript reports an advanced approach to enhance and evaluate the surface charge density of
 triboelectric nanogenerator (TENG), which is vitally important in TENG related energy harvesting and
 sensing. The authors demonstrated the highest record of average charge density up to 2.38 mC m-2
 using a 4 μm PEI film and homemade carbon/silicone gel electrodes with an ambient atmosphere of
 5% relative humidity. The prospective technic approach provided in this manuscript for surface charge
 density enhancement will greatly push the output performance of TENG to a new horizon. The
 outcome of this work is impressive and is also important in the TENG field. Overall, the reply to
 comments is very convincing and helpful. Thus, I recommend a formal acceptance for this manuscript.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors took into consideration the reviewers’ comments, they analyzed additional measurements
 and answered to the questions. They addressed most of reviewers’ comments and took them into
 account by modifying the manuscript and the supplementary information. They nicely answered the
 questions by providing data, analysis and discussions. The manuscript has been changed and is now
 better and clearer. Overall I think this work can now be published in Nature Communications. This is
 why I recommend accepting this manuscript.
 Reviewer #3:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have addressed all concerns and comments. I recommend to publish the paper as is.
Peer review of: Structural insights into catalytic mechanism and product delivery of cyanobacterial acyl-acyl carrie (2020)



RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
This paper has a potential to be accepted, but some minor points have to be clarified or fixed.
   Minor concerns
 In L408 and L436, Please verify the gene ID number and is it genbank ID ?
 In the legend of figure 4c, the color of ligand should be defined by the according PDB ID or protein
 name.
 In SI figure 12, please check the title "The yield of product of AAR (octadecanal) and ADO
 (heptadecane) after incubating with each other."
 In the legend of figure 3, footnotes for “a” and “b” are omitted
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  All concerns raised previously are adequately answered in the revised manuscript. However, this
 reviewer still has some minor comments on the revised manuscript and new data as described
 below.
 1. This reviewer is curious about the activity of the E196A/E200A/D201A triple mutant of ADO.
 Suppl Fig. 12 showed that the hydrocarbon yield was lower for the triple mutant compared with
 the wild type ADO. Two possible explanations of this result are (1) low efficiency of aldehyde
 transfer from AAR to the triple mutant of ADO due to the inability of AAR-ADO binding and (2) low
 activity of the triple mutant of ADO. Although the authors showed that the triple mutant does not
 bind to AAR, the second possibility still remains.
 2. In line 325-327, the authors suggested that the active form (the ligand-bound form) is more
 favorable for AAR to bind ADO, compared with the loosely packed apo form of AAR. Are there any
 experimental evidence supporting this suggestion?
 3. Please describe how many times the ITC and MST measurements were repeated to check the
 reproducibility of the data.
 4. Line 184: The reference 25 cited here is not related to the activity of AAR. The reference that
 should be cited here is probably ref. 15.
 5.Line 228: Ref. 18 should be cited here instead of ref. 25.
6. Figure 1(d): What is the meaning of "N.D."?
7. Figure 3(c): What are the meanings of superscript a and b? 8. Figure 4(c): What do the blue, yellow and red sticks show?
    9. Figure 5 legend: Abbreviations of the three domains (N, M and C) are not necessary because
 they are not used in the Figure.
 10. Suppl Fig. 3: Please describe the details on the experiments, such as molecular weights of the
 markers, and the column and protein concentrations used in the size exclusion chromatography.

 11. Suppl Fig. 11: Orientation of the molecules in panels (a) and (c) should be the same.
 12. There are many typographical errors:
 Line 409: synthetized --> synthesized
 Line 415: knaJ --> dnaJ
 Line 673: measure --> measured
 Ref. 8: Rahmana --> Rahman
 Figure 1(c): R70 --> R73
 Figures 1(d) and 3(c): "micro" --> mu in Greek alphabet
 Figure 3(c): ml --> mL
 Suppl Fig. 12, line 5: by wild type and ... --> by wild type of AAR and ...
 Suppl Table 1: stearyol-CoA --> stearoyl-CoA
Peer review of: Titanium-based potassium-ion battery positive electrode with extraordinarily high redox potentia (2020)


RR2
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
  The manuscript is well revised according to reviewers' comments.
 After including the EELS and EPR results, the electrochemical mechanisms of the KTiPO4F is clearly
 revealed and confirmed. Therefore, I recommend to accept this manuscript for publication in current
 stage.
  Well done. I believe that the present work will be one of the milestone to excavate a new compound
 for KIBs.
  I appreciate the efforts the authors have taken to address the questions I have raised. Here I still
 have a couple of major concerns before I can recommend an acceptance of this work in Nat Commun.
 1. The fluorine-to-oxygen ratio turned out to play a critical role in determining the electrochemical
 properties in the prepared fluorophosphates. To make the data more convincing, it become necessary
 that the fluorine-to-oxygen ration be changed to show the composition-dependent performance.
 2. The operando XRD data showed complex phase transitions during the electrochemical reaction. A
 detailed analysis on the multiple two-phase intercalations is needed so as to provide a clear
 understanding on the storage behavior of the KTiPO4F.
Peer review of: Low-temperature paddlewheel effect in glassy solid electrolytes (2020)


RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  Authors adequately address my comments that further confirmed the claimed mechanism present at
 both low and high temperatures. I think that this manuscript will be of interest to a wide range of solid
 state chemists and battery researchers. I recommend it for publication.
  
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors agreed that the simulations are only about the Li-ion “migration” process and they only
 calculated Li-ion diffusivity, not the Li ionic conductivity. I suggest “Conductivity” should be replaced
 by “diffusivity” in the following places to avoid exchanging the two concepts, especially their
 relationship is more complicated for amorphous.
 a) In the abstract “Furthermore, the dynamics in the glass are shown to differ from those in the stable
 crystalline (g-Li3PS4) analogue, where contributions from anion reorientations are negligible and the
 conductivity is several orders of magnitude smaller.” [They only computed D]
 b) On page 2, “More specifically, ab initio molecular dynamics (AIMD) simulations were used to reveal
 the static and dynamic atomic scale features that underlie ionic conductivity in glassy Li3PS4.” [They
 only studied migration or diffusion]
Peer review of: Elastic conducting polymer composites in thermoelectric modules (2020)



RR3
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS (After revision): Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
I appreciate the effort the authors expended into fully addressing the reviewer comments. I believe this manuscript not only represents a significant advancement in the field of flexible thermoelectrics, but also contains sufficient detail and corollary data to motivate and guide the research efforts of the broad flexible electronics community and is therefore suitable for publication in its current form.
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
In this revised manuscript, experimental results are systematically demonstrated to address a relationship between Seebeck coefficient and electrical conductivity of elastic conducting polymers with IL and WPU. Also, new investigation is suggested for the analysis on anisotropy of a thermoelectric module for stretchable electronics and effect of Au-TiO2 NW electrodes on thermoelectric performance with relevant discussions. This revised manuscript is significantly improved and I believe this manuscript is sufficient for publication in Nature Communication.
Peer review of: Enhanced optical path and electron diffusion length enable high-efficiency perovskite tandems (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Therefore, I recommend the publication of the revised manuscript in Nature Communications.
  I am satisfied with the responses to the reviewer comments and am able to recommend publishing the
 manuscript in its current form.
  The authors have provided a new suite of electrical characterisation and measurements. Additionally,
 they have demonstrated semi-transparent perovskite solar cells (and tandem solar cells) that are
 significantly larger than the ones reported previously while exhibiting relatively high efficiency.
 The authors have significantly improved the article in the revised manuscript and I believe this revised
 article merits a publication is Nature Communications.
Peer review of: Ruthenium anchored on carbon nanotube electrocatalyst for hydrogen production with enhanced (2020)


RR2

 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  The revised version provided by Baek and co-workers clearly improves the original submission and
provides pertinent answers to the set of questions raised by the reviewers. Particularly, the authors
  provide extra characterization data (EXAFS) of the formed Ru(III) complexes at the surface of
 MWCNTs prior to NP formation and include new Ru-H adsorption energies from DFT calculations that
 support the excellent HER activity of the supported system when compared with their previous work in
 Nat. Nanotechnol. (2017). Also, a fair comparison of the most relevant figures of merit (TOF,
 overpotential) is now included in Figure 3d. In this regard, I would suggest including appropriate
 references from where these numerous data have been collected (recent reviews). All in all, even if
the synthetic methodology does not provide novel concepts to the field, the top performance of the
  catalyst in HER and its performance in the reported overall WS device are sound enough to merit
 publication in Nature Communications.
 Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
 The authors have addressed all my concerns and thus I would suggest the acceptance of this
manuscript as is.
   The authors addressed the comments to some extent and revised the paper accordingly. The revised
 paper could be considered for publication.
Peer review of: Structural evolution at the oxidative and reductive limits in the first electrochemical cycle of Li1.2 (2020)

RR2
 Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  Regarding the discussion of new phase A’ in bulk or surface phase, there are no doubts about the bulk
 approach of XRD/ND. The challenge of STEM is well known and typically used as a complimentary tool.
 Nevertheless, the key concern in this discussion is rather the assignment of the final phase after OCV
 resting. Other supporting experimental evidence is clear. For example, phase A’ does not form at 4.6
 V, regardless of CV or OCV steps, on the contrary, it forms at 4.8 V-OCV. The criticalness of
 electrochemical history sounds consistent with the OEMS results about O2 gas release. New STEM
 images provided in Fig.2 are much more meaningful compared to that (previous Fig. 1) with a few
 nanometers on the surface.
 The question why it forms after OCV resting will provide scientific advance because bulk densification
 in the stoichiometric layered R3m does not occur. The authors discussed the possible reasons that
 explain why you think a densified phase is more likely in this case. Is there reference to support this
 claim? The DFT calculations maybe helpful for this discussion. I think the diffusion of oxygen vacancies
 and threshold of oxygen vacancies to stabilize the densified phase A’s will be meaningful in this topic.
 Oxygen vacancies must form in layered-layered oxide due to the oxygen loss, at which point it
 essentially causes a stable but detrimental densified phase A’s will be of interest.
 Also, oxygen loss/vacancies is the driving factor to form densified phase A’, which is reversible during
 charge-discharge. However, layered-layered oxide only release O2 gas in the first cycle, as the
 authors report here as well. Can the authors comment whether the material is cycled between
 discharged state and phase A’ after the first cycles? In other words, is phase A’ the structure at
 charged state after its formation?
 Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
 I have carefully reread the paper and the authors responses. They have addressed my original
 concerns in the revised manuscript. THe paper is in my opinion suitable for publication in Nature
 Communications.
Peer review of: Simultaneous enhanced efficiency and thermal stability in organic solar cells from a polymer acce (2020)



RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
The Voc of PM6:PZ1 may be 0.94 V, not 0.0.94 V. It should be revised.Except that one, the
 manuscript is ready to be accepted.

Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
I am satisfied with the revision. I think the manuscript can be accepted as is.
Reviewer #4 (Remarks to the Author):
A new organic photovoltaic system with polymeric micro-doping that exhibits outstanding efficiency
 and thermal stability
 This work presents a new acceptor molecule named BTTT-2Cl, and a thermally stable device based on
 PM6:BTTT-2Cl:PZ1 ternary blend, which retained high efficiency even after 400 hr thermal annealing
 at 150 °C. The introduction of tiny amounts of PZ1 as a third component greatly improved the long-
 term thermal stability of the solar cells, which is successfully applied into several different D:A
 systems. It is also very interesting to find that the authors studied the device stability under rapid
 temperature change.
 The revised manuscript is well organised, and all reviewers’ comments have been well and clearly
 addressed. The presented results are very important and I suggest acceptance of the manuscript after
 minor revision, after addressing the issues below:
 1. Line 122 to 126 and Fig. S6: The authors state “ BTTT-2Cl shows single, sharp and strong
 endothermic peak at the first heating (Fig. S6B)”. But it is only possible to see an exothermic peak in
 Fig. S6B? Cold crystallisation is normally an exothermic process.
 2. Line 221: “The values in bracket are the average PCE obtained from eight devices.” There are no
 brackets. This footnote should be deleted.
 3. Line 269: “numerous long string-like BTTT-2Cl aggregates were observed” These are not
 aggregates, they are crystals. According to IUPAC 2013 the definition of an aggregate is: “Irregular
 cluster of otherwise individual molecules or particles.” The features are clearly crystalline according to
 Fig. 3C. On line 276 it should be “thermally induced crystallisation” and not “thermally induced
 aggregation”.
 4. Line 273 to 275: The statement “Incorporating polymer acceptor PZ1 with long alkyl side chains
 into the PM6:BTTT-2Cl blend can form an insoluble framework” is not clear. What is the polymer not
 soluble in? Remove insoluble.
 5. Line 391 to 395: Device performance of four different systems without using PZ1 before and after
 heating are compared, but the figures and tables listed in the parentheses and presented in the
 supporting information actually show the photovoltaic parameters of devices with different PZ1
 content, not after heating.

 Supporting information
 6. Line 57 to 58: It was mentioned that the four different blends were “bladed” on top of PEDOT:PSS.
 But the active layers were all spin-coated, the use of “bladed” is misleading. I suggest changing the
 word to “deposited” or “spin-coated”.
 7. Line 181: “Fig. S8” should be corrected to “Fig. S9”.
Peer review of: Multi-functional anodes boost the transient power and durability of proton exchange membrane (2020)

RR2
 REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
  The manuscript has been improved according to previous comments and I would like to thank the
 authors for their efforts. Additionnal results have been added to strengthen their conclusions.
 There are still some minor errors to be corrected before publication:
 Supplementary Figure 9C: it looks like there is only the result for the control cell and not the one for
 the hybrid cell as stated in the caption. Could you please check along with the color of the curves.
 Supplementary Figure 11: could the authors mentionned in the caption the operating conditions?
 In page 7, the added text refers to Supplementary Figure 10 but it seems that it has to refer to
 Supplementary Figure 9. Could the authors check?
 Page 7, line 300: "Meanwhile, C are proton conductive". Typo error?
 Arnaud Morin
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
  The authors have provided a robust response to reviewers' comments and the revised manuscript is
 acceptable for publication subject to resolution of some minor issues which have become apparent in
 the revised version:
 In the first paragraph of Section 1 of the text, it is stated that the 'reaction was conducted using
 sodium tungstate and ammonium sulfide as precursors'; ammonium sulfate is indicated in the
 supplementary document.
 In the last paragraph of Section 3 of the text, the statement 'Meanwhile, C are proton conductive'
 needs clarification, and
 Supplementary Figure numbers subsequent to Supplementary Figure 9 in the text require to be
 corrected
Peer review of: Intermolecular cascaded π-conjugation channels for electron delivery powering CO2 photoreduct (2020)

RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author):
The authors have addressed all the comments. It is ready for publication.
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
    The revisions have improved the manuscript significantly and I would recommend for it to be accepted
 for publication.
  The manuscript of J.H. Ye et al. reports on the original construction of intermolecular cascaded π-
 conjugation channels for powering CO2 photoreduction by modifying both intramolecular and
 intermolecular conjugation of conjugated polymers. This study is of great interest and reports a rather
 novel approach. Detailed experimental analysis and theoretical calculations were conducted to verify
 the proposed approach and conclusion. This work might interest those in pursuit of better
photogenerated electron delivery from the viewpoint of the molecular architecture. The conclusions
  are original and the work is convincing. Sufficient experiments are conducted to verify the conclusions.
 I think this work is now publishable after the modifications.
Peer review of: Reactant friendly hydrogen evolution interface based on di-anionic MoS2 surface (2020)


RR2
REVIEWERS' COMMENTS:
Reviewer #2 (Remarks to the Author):
There are some minor comments that should be addressed:
  The authors made great efforts to prove that the active sites were MoS2 based. All questions were
answered.
  **Concerning Reviewer #1's previous comments:
 I went over the comments and for me the authors provided sufficiently proof for their claim. I would
 never have guessed that it is really the Mo-S sites that are the active sites, but the data seems to be
 convincing.
  There are figures that are neither mentioned in the main nor in the supporting information. Please add
 the missing cross-linking
 For Supplementary Figure 13, the scale bar is missing in all Figures. The SAED pattern does not tell
 much if not specified which species it is.
 The same holds true for S-Figure 12: Please assign the peaks indicated. I could neither find an
 explanation in the text, the supporting information nor in the figure caption. The same holds true for
many figures. If peaks are indicated, they should appear in the main text. Please recheck all figures.
  Figure R1-5: The sub-angstrom resolution high angle annular dark field-scanning transmission
 electron microscopy images do not show any single atoms of Pd or Ru. Is it because the contrast
 between Mo, Pd and Ru is not sufficient to resolve or is there no Pd/Ru in the shown TEM image?**
 Reviewer #3 (Remarks to the Author):
All of my comments have been treated. I would like to recommend the acceptance by Nature
  Communications. It will be of broad interest to the audience of the journal.
Peer review of: Rational design of DNA nanostructures for single molecule biosensing (2020)


RR2
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have addressed my concerns in a satisfactory manner. I recommend publication.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 The authors have addressed well the comments by both reviewers. I believe the manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form.
Peer review of: Nonvolatile ferroelectric field-effect transistors (2020)


RR2
 Reviewers' Comments:
 Reviewer #1:
 Remarks to the Author:
 I have read the rebuttal and revised text and find it satisfactory for publication.
 Reviewer #2:
 Remarks to the Author:
 All the questions are addressed properly. I do recommend the publication of this manuscript.