Recent Advances of Doping and Surface Modifying Carbon Nitride with Characterization Techniques
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article "Recent advances in doping carbon nitride with characterisation techniques" is devoted to a literature review concerning the improvement of the photocatalytic properties of graphite carbon nitride. The review is quite comprehensive. Different methods of doping graphite carbon nitride with metals, nonmetals as well as self-doping and co-doping are considered. The article is useful for the development of methods to improve the photocatalytic properties of graphite carbon nitride to solve many environmental problems.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for positive comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
I read the review paper carefully. This review paper on carbon nitride (CN)- based catalysts which described several methodologies preparation of doping CN by herto-atoms and their characterization with different techniques. Nevertheless, some major revisions are required before it can be recommended for publication.
As a general the review need more details and examples about the “catalytic systems” based on this support CN “different reaction systems, stability and so on…..”. To be more suitable for scientific journal which competent only to catalysts.
1- In the introduction part you mentioned “to create new energy” which not precise to say that, better to switched to "changed or transformed".
2- The table mentioned in the texts of the manuscript is missing insert that.
3- Need to discuss the activities and rate enhanced of the presented catalysts in the table 1 (as example in the case of the Noble metals) for all.
4- In the doped CN systems may be better if you divided only into two parts “metal doping and non-metal doping” because, in the case of Non-metal hetero-doping , Self-doping and Functional group doping all of them can be considered as surface Functionalized modification.
5- In the part of metal doping “the coordination geometry of Pt or Pd species is missing here before and during the reaction.” This affected the catalytic performances.
6- its also important to mention the table with the entry in each part you discussed in the manuscript “as example in the first part of Pt-doping CN you can mentioned that in the end of this part the to be more useful for the reader!, also may be its better to introduce same catalytic reaction examples for the catalysts with different doping metals!!
7- some explanations about the precursors of CN described in this work are needed, "how can affected the structure and the catalytic properties".
8- In the “Characterization of Doped CN” as a review better to included more examples in this part! you used only one example for each technique which not enough to give a concentrated and useful information.
9- In figure 8 a and b there is numbers inside the figures 1,2,3 and 4, you don't mentioned for what are refers this numbers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper shows a good review comparing and summarizing the use of doped CN photocatalysts. Some issues need to address:
- I believe this review would benefit from a table that could compare and provide an overview of the discussed approaches. The table should include the advantages and limitations of each approach as well as findings.
- The language of the paper needs to be improved. There are some grammatical errors; carefully check the whole manuscript.
- The introduction should be rewritten to show the highlights and novelty of the work.
- section of drawbacks and future could be increased the quality of the manuscript.
- It is recommended to add a statement to clearly separate the current work from these similar references and also define the review period (e.g. last five years). Also, prepare statistical data (such as the number of documents, documents per country) about you used references by creating databanks such as Scopus, Google Scholar, and web of science.
- Maybe at the beginning of the article, there should be a list of abbreviations?
- A review paper not only should summarize recently published works, but also should contain critical and comprehensive discussions. Therefore, check the writing for the whole manuscript. The review should not be presented by listing what have done by others.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I believe the revised draft doesn't need any further revisions.
I approve of the consideration for publication in current form.
Reviewer 3 Report
Recent advances of doping and surface modifying carbon nitride with characterization techniques
- The manuscript problems have been fixed in the new version.
