24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 4191  |  回复: 19
【悬赏金币】回答本帖问题,作者whilst将赠送您 20 个金币

whilst

新虫 (初入文坛)

[求助] 投稿AFM被拒 一小修一大修一拒 还有必要argue吗 已有3人参与

请各位帮我看看这种情况有必要argue吗?上诉有希望吗?

Reviewer #1: This research reported the amino phosphonic acid resin as host to solve the lithium anode issues in LMBs. The APAR represents 3D and lithiophilic features, which is benefit to the absorption and deposition of Li. The results of experiments and computational simulation indicated the advantages of APAR in LMBs. However, the essence of the manuscript is just the common design of 3D lithiophilic host, which is not innovation enough for the current researches in LMBs. Meanwhile, the electrochemical performances of half and symmetrical cells in Figure 5 are also not good enough compared to other reported published literature. Therefore, it is not recommended to publish this manuscript in Advanced Functional Materials.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript reports the application of cross-linked lithiophilic amino phosphonic acid resin as the effective host material for the lithium metal batteries. The half-cell shows a Coulombic efficiency (CE) of 98.8% over 130 cycles. The symmetrical cell exhibits stable cycling lifetime over 1150 hours with small voltage hysteresis of 16 mV. I would like to give a favorable recommendation if the authors address the following issues in a revision.

1. This has confused me for a long time, what are the actual differences between the Li-metal anodes with host materials and the graphite anodes. The theoretical capacity and potential have both weighed in the evaluation of the significances of the pure Li metal anode. Please provide the surface loading of the Li on the APAR host, and the theoretical capacity of this anode.
2. All the adsorption energies in Figure 4 are positive. A positive adsorption energy means that the adsorbate is thermodynamically unfavorable to be absorbed on the substrates. I guess the authors messed up with the sign of adsorption energies. The authors should refer to the comprehensive review (Energy Environ. Mater. 2019, 2, 264-279) about DFT calculations for battery materials.
3. In Figure 5f, the Cu@Li symmetric cell with the widely used ether based electrolyte (with 1 wt% LiNO3) exhibits the worst cycling stability that I has ever seen.
4. The author have some errors and typos in main text and reference section. Please carefully revise the manuscript.

Reviewer #3: This manuscript reported that the dendrite growth of lithium metal anode was supressed by using cross-linked lithiophilic amino phosphonic acid resin (APAR) with Li+-pumping feature as the effective host. The Li-O2 full cells with APAR@Li anodes and Super P cathodes deliver high energy density and good cyclability due to the high reversibility of APAR@Li was applied. The working mechanism of APAR was demonstrated by DFT calculations and finite element simulation. This study reported a novel strategy for suppressing dendritic Li growth by guiding high and uniform Li+ concentration distribution at the electrode/electrolyte interface. The paper is well structured and provided a clear interpretation to help us understand the function of lithiophilic polymer in the suppression of lithium dendrite, therefore, I recommend the paper could be published in AFM with minor revision.

1. In Figure S5, the high Zeta potential of 3D APAR scaffold (nearly +33 mV) in the electrolyte
confirms its strong affinity towards Li+ ions. Whether the absorption is from both physical absorption or chemical absorption? The pore volume of the 3D APAR scaffold should be measured to estimate the physical absorption if the equipment is available.
2. In this manuscript, experimental results give a clear evidence that the APAR can mitigate the volume change of the Li metal anode in Figure 2n. The detailed interpretation of how the APAR mitigate the volume change of lithium metal anode should be provided.
3. In Figure 5e, please explain why the impedance of APAR@Li decreases after cycling.
回复此楼
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
回帖支持 ( 显示支持度最高的前 50 名 )

li19891108

金虫 (著名写手)

感觉希望挺大建议argure 不行试试ACS Energy Letter或者ACS Nano?

发自小木虫IOS客户端
加油加油加油!!!
4楼2021-06-25 22:00:03
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

bobvan

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

【答案】应助回帖

the essence of the manuscript is just the common design of 3D lithiophilic host, which is not innovation enough for the current researches in LMBs. Meanwhile, the electrochemical performances of half and symmetrical cells in Figure 5 are also not good enough compared to other reported published literature. 估计这两条有一条沾上就没有什么希望。我投稿也是三个审稿意见,第三个说性能不够好,结果就拒了。申诉后,编辑让转投 Small,懒得折腾,转投后很快接收(没有再外审)
6楼2021-06-27 02:32:51
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

lihl910807

木虫 (著名写手)

argue呀。新颖性不足的问题就和他争辩就行,这东西各说各有理。

发自小木虫IOS客户端
2楼2021-06-25 14:56:44
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

bobvan

至尊木虫 (文坛精英)

【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
the essence of the manuscript is just the common design of 3D lithiophilic host, which is not innovation enough for the current researches in LMBs. Meanwhile, the electrochemical performances of half and symmetrical cells in Figure 5 are also not good enough compared to other reported published literature. 估计这两条有一条沾上就没有什么希望。我投稿也是三个审稿意见,第三个说性能不够好,结果就拒了。申诉后,编辑让转投 Small,懒得折腾,转投后很快接收(没有再外审)
5楼2021-06-27 02:32:18
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

whilst

新虫 (初入文坛)

引用回帖:
4楼: Originally posted by li19891108 at 2021-06-25 22:00:03
感觉希望挺大建议argure 不行试试ACS Energy Letter或者ACS Nano?

可是申诉流程太长了,这样的话就赶不上评国奖了。。。还是挺想拿证书的。
7楼2021-06-27 10:47:30
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

whilst

新虫 (初入文坛)

引用回帖:
5楼: Originally posted by bobvan at 2021-06-27 02:32:18
the essence of the manuscript is just the common design of 3D lithiophilic host, which is not innovation enough for the current researches in LMBs. Meanwhile, the electrochemical performances of half ...

AFM转投他们不知名的姐妹刊(编辑没有给我small的选择),不甘心啊。。
8楼2021-06-27 10:50:34
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

国际科学编辑

铁杆木虫 (知名作家)


【答案】应助回帖

感谢参与,应助指数 +1
基于现有的review reports,即使argue,逆转的可能性也不大

发自小木虫IOS客户端
9楼2021-06-27 10:56:19
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

奋斗的cat

新虫 (小有名气)

【答案】应助回帖

第一个评审说你是常规手段,成果Figure 5也不够好,基本这种话就挺致命的。另外第二个评审的意见如果跟第三个一样好把你夸了一顿,2比1才有argue的意义
17楼2021-06-28 16:09:59
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通回帖

whilst

新虫 (初入文坛)

引用回帖:
2楼: Originally posted by lihl910807 at 2021-06-25 14:56:44
argue呀。新颖性不足的问题就和他争辩就行,这东西各说各有理。

就怕是编辑不感兴趣。。。
3楼2021-06-25 16:40:11
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
10楼2021-06-27 10:56:46
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 whilst 的主题更新
不应助 确定回帖应助 (注意:应助才可能被奖励,但不允许灌水,必须填写15个字符以上)
信息提示
请填处理意见